John H... had a face that only a mother could love: the ears were oversize--the nose bulbous. His chin was weak and the thick lenses of his glasses shielded watery, blue eyes. His hair was quite unruly--indifferent to combing--and he was plagued with a bad case of acne. As if these unwelcome attributes were not enough burden, John was short, slight and extremely pigeon-toed.
John, when he was noticed at all, was an object of ridicule at the college where he was majoring in accounting. This had been his lot, also, at every school he'd attended. Coupled with his inferiority complex and innate shyness, all these factors combined to place John, at the age of twenty, in the classification of boys who'd never had a date, held a girl's hands nor kissed a girl.
John had asked a girl for a date, once. But the laughter which followed his request unnerved him so he never tried again. Indeed, in John's confirmed state of rejection, he'd never had nerve enough to accost a prostitute.
The one asset John possessed was a Sting Ray Corvette, which was a gift from his mother.
The night of April 11th, John left a bowling alley in Dover, Delaware--his hometown and the location of the college he attended--walking across the parking lot, alone, as usual. It wasn't until, arriving at the spot where he'd parked his car, and opening the door, that John discovered that he wasn't alone, after all.
"That's a swell car," came a voice from the shadows and a young girl stepped out. "I wish I could go for a ride in it."
John blinked and looked at her. She was young, barely a teen-ager, if that. But, she was a girl, and the thin dress that was too small for her revealed that she had breasts, even if they were not much larger than golf balls. As she moved closer, John could see that she needed a bath and that she looked undernourished. Still, she was a girl.
"I'll take you for a ride," John told her, glad to have company, even if it were only a kid.
They drove aimlessly through the city streets for fifteen or twenty minutes; then the girl, who had told him that her name was Peggy, suggested they go to a drive-in restaurant.
"Like on a date, you mean?" John asked. Peggy nodded brightly. "And then what?" John wondered aloud.
"What do you usually do on a date?" she asked, with a shrug of her thin shoulders that made her small breasts tremble, slightly.
John didn't tell her that he'd never had a date. Instead, after buying her two hamburgers and a shake and giving her a quarter to play the jukebox, he suggested they park somewhere. Peggy agreed without hesitation and it wasn't until she became aware that they were in a residential area that she seemed apprehensive. But, when John said he would drive her back downtown, she relaxed.
His parents were out of town, so John parked in his own drive-way and turned to Peggy, pulling her to him and kissing her with fervor, if not finesse. Apparently she didn't know the difference, or didn't care; because she slid her arms around him and rubbed her lips against his.
Timidly, expecting to be rebuffed, John lifted one hand and touched the little mounds of flesh beneath her dress. To his surprise, Peggy did not resist. Nor did she when he opened her dress and rubbed her bare breasts until the nipples puckered into erectness. John couldn't believe his luck.
"Let's go inside," he whispered. "There's no one home."
Peggy nodded and John led her through the house and up to his room. There she asked if she could take a shower! He was a little taken aback at this, but consented. In a minute he heard water running in the next room.
The thought of a naked girl in his bathroom-- even such an immature one as Peggy--inflamed him and he was trembling when she turned the water off. Almost unconsciously, he opened the door and walked in on her.
Once again he was surprised by the fact that she didn't seem alarmed. He took the towel from her and rubbed her dry as he kissed her. Then, in a burst of daring, he put his lips to her breasts and placed his hand firmly over her sparsely-fringed genitals. There was still no resistance nor protest from the girl.
And, when John lifted her, carried her to the bed and stretched her out, then began to undress, she just watched him. It wasn't until he was lying beside her, moving his hands over her in a fumbling excitement, that she asked: "Do you like me?" When John nodded, she went on: "Enough to take me to the movies?"
"I'll take you to a drive-in tomorrow," John told her, as he closed his mouth over one of her breasts.
"All right," Peggy replied, parting her legs farther, "you can do it, then."
It took John a minute to comprehend what she meant, but once he understood, there was no stopping him as he struggled his way into position and began. Even Peggy's moan of pain at her defloration didn't deter him...
At the same time that John and Peggy were losing their virginity, a pair of college students, Lee K... and Susan J... both 20 and both juniors, were entering a motel room outside Nashville, Tennessee.
Lee and Susan had known each other for years; had grown up together, in fact; and had been dating for the past five years. They were planning to marry as soon as the semester was over and both sets of parents heartily approved of the match.
Once inside the room, they melted into each other's arms and kissed heatedly for a long moment, their tongues moving together impatiently as Lee massaged Susan's buttocks. And, as soon as they pulled apart, they began to undress.
Despite the fact that Lee had seen Susan naked many times, and had caused her nudity on about half of them, he still paused to watch, appreciatively, as she removed her bra and bared her 37-inch breasts to him. A moment later she'd taken off her half-slip and panties and her 22-inch waist and 38-inch hips were presented to him in a state of exciting nudity.
Susan hung her clothes on a chair and walked to the bed and Lee admired the wiggle of her hips and the way her breasts moved as she walked. She lay on her back, her thighs parted to display the triangle that proclaimed she was a mature and natural blonde. As Lee finished undressing and moved toward her, Susan stroked her thighs in anticipation.
They lay in each other's arms, caressing skillfully, for fifteen minutes or so. Then Susan drew her legs up until her heels touched her buttocks, and Lee knew she was ready for him and moved to cover her body with his.
Despite the fact that they had become fully intimate the previous summer and had gone to bed together on an average of twice a week since then, Lee was still amazed at the frenzied way with which Susan grabbed and inserted him, then began to move beneath him as he thrust rhythmically into her. He was a lucky man, he thought as he held her breasts and kissed her, to have such a passionate girl.
* * *
One of the two young men described above is guilty of a sex crime!
To be specific, one of them is guilty of statutory rape, which is defined as: "... having carnal knowledge of a girl below the age of consent, but without gaining such knowledge by force... " Surprisingly though, although Peggy was only 12 on the night in question, it was Lee who committed the criminal act!
This is true because the age of consent in Delaware is, unbelievably, SEVEN years; while, in Tennessee, it is 21!
Statutory rape is a crime in all states; but the age of consent varies widely, with Delaware and Tennessee representing the extremes. Most states set the age of consent at a more reasonable age, although 14 have set it at 18, and 10 have fixed it at 12.
And, just as the law is full of variations in regard to the age of consent, so it is full of variation in regard to the penalty for statutory rape--in 17 states the penalty can be death(!); while in another 23 it can be life imprisonment; two more states set the sentence at 99 years; and the most lenient state (if lenient be the word) has a maximum penalty of a ten year prison sentence.
Furthermore, the age of the girl is irrelevant, as long as she is under the age of consent--the same penalty can be imposed on a man who had intercourse" with a girl who was only days away from being of age, as a man who had intercourse with a child of eight or nine.
* * *
"If the law says that, then the law is an ass," said one of Charles Dickens' characters, over a hundred years ago.
And, even today, when it comes to sex, the law is, indeed, an ass.
CHAPTER TWO
If, indeed, "the law is an ass" in the area of matters pertaining to sex--the next question is: Why?
An explanation will be found in the principles of sociology. This condition--of laws being unrealistically out of step with actual practise--is due to a phenomenon which is described as cultural lag. A cultural lag occurs when one element of a society fails to keep abreast of the changes which are occurring in the other elements.
An example of cultural lag is found in the reluctance of the Roman Catholic Church to accept the Copernican Theory that Earth, and the other planets of our solar system, revolve about the sun. The Church condemned Galileo as a heretic for his writings on the subject, and it has only been in recent years that the scientist's books have been removed from the Index Librarium Prohibitorum-- that list of books the faithful are forbidden to read under pain of committing a venal sin.
Another example of cultural lag is the existence of laws, in some states, which still forbid the teaching of another widely-accepted theory--that of human origin--the Darwin Theory of evolution. Still another is the belief, held by some, that one race is inherently superior to other races.
A shocking example of cultural lag in law (which is also a demonstration that, certainly in this case, "the law is an ass") is to be found in the federal statute which decrees that enlistment in the armed forces is grounds for divorce! (At the time this law was enacted, there were no provisions for housing wives of servicemen on post, unless the man was an officer. And the largest branch of the service--the Army--had most of its men on active duty in the west, which was still an uncivilized land. When it became apparent that many men were enlisting in order to get away from their wives, Congress, in order to protect the wives and families of such men, enacted the law.)
* * *
If cultural lag is the reason for the law's being an ass; what is the reason for cultural lag?
Put simply, cultural lag results from the fact that social institutions, and society as a whole, tend to be more conservative than the average individual of that society; and the law tends to be more conservative than the average social institution.
Thus, while the average citizen accepts the idea of a store staying opened for business on Sunday, the average social institution concerned with such matters (the churches and labor organizations) may not, and the law has not yet given the same freedom of action on Sunday in certain states as it has on other days, and still restricts certain populations as to what they may or may not do on Sunday.
There are a number of reasons why the lag exists and there are good arguments both in favor and in opposition to the slowness of social institutions and the law to accept change. Since this book is not sociology, per se, it is not its aim to discuss the problems caused by cultural lag in general; but only to discuss them in context with the law as it relates to sexual conduct; and to point out some of the discrepancies between things as they actually are and things as the law says they should be.
* * *
Scientists such as Dr. Alfred Kinsey, Drs. Phyllis and Eberhard Kronhausen, Dr. Albert Ellis and Dr. Benjamin Morse, reporters and writers like Donald Webster Cory, Gail Greene and Jess Stearn, have shown through case histories, surveys and statistics, that America is in the midst of a revolutionary alteration of its mores where sexual belief and sexual practice are concerned.
But, despite the evidence that the mores of sex are changing; despite the evidence that the majority of the population accepts, if it may not entirely approve, these changes, the law, in the great majority of cases, is still what it was 50 or even 100 years ago.
It has been estimated that, if the laws pertaining to sex were strictly enforced, the country would see 95% of its citizens behind bars. That's right--95% of us are sex criminals!
Fortunately, many of these laws are not enforced strictly; but, they are on the books, which is unfortunate for several reasons.
While some of the so-called 'dead letter' laws (laws that haven't been repealed but are not enforced) are merely humorous--such as the Massachusetts law making it illegal to keep sea serpents within tow limits--there are others which are no laughing matter. Violation can easily lead to tragedy.
Even though a law is not normally enforced, the fact that it is on the books can result in blackmail against a violator--can force a person into marriage against his wishes--cause his exile from his community or his loss of status and reputation--or cost him his job.
It may be argued, reasonably, that if a person violates a law, he deserves whatever penalty is assessed against him. Ignorance of the law, of course, being no excuse.
This is the normal attitude of mind of a law-abiding population. But--what of those instances of bad laws?
Some examples: In Boston, it is illegal to take a bath without a doctor's prescription--should Bostonians go unwashed or should they overwhelm the medical profession with requests for prescriptions? In Virginia (and some other states) it is illegal to operate an automobile after nightfall, unless the vehicle is preceded by a man walking at least 50 feet in advance of it and waving a red lantern to alert approaching horsemen. What sense does retention of such a law make today with both horses and red lanterns being something of a rarity?
Laws, however, are not passed with an eye to the future, but with the purpose of correcting an immediate problem, or resolving past inequities.
Unfortunately, though times and conditions change sometimes with great rapidity--and though we learn more about human nature and human behavior, thus being able to correct the misconceptions under which our forefathers acted, the laws which they made are, in many instances, still in force.
If this seems strange, consider this: while the public's privately-held ideas on sexual conduct have changed to a startling degree in the past decade, the publicity-professed ideas, haven't changed that much.
And, since laws tend to be more conservative than the average citizen's professed ideas, the laws have barely changed at all.
For many people, moreover, (particularly those in positions of influence in churches and other social institutions which deal with mores and social morality) sex and sin are still synonymous and any liberalization of existing laws is looked upon as yielding to the forces of evil.
The majority of lawmakers, therefore, refuse to initiate reforms of the legal code as it deals with sex, since they fear the hue-and-cry which would be raised by conservatives and 'churchmen'--despite the fact that these same legislators would be the first to state that they hold to the principle of continued separation of church and state... they are influenced to a great extent by the church.
(And the hue-and-cry is not restricted to matters dealing with sex; other matters, which come under the broad area of 'worldly pleasures' are the cause of frequent controversy. They also produce some shocking and surprising alliances. When West Virginia recently considered a constitutional amendment which would permit counties to decide the question of selling liquor by the drink, the two groups most vocal in opposition were the preachers and bootleggers. (The same was true when the State of Oklahoma voted to legalize the sale of whiskey.) And the two groups most opposed to the legalization of gambling under a code similar to Nevada's, are the ministers--and the gangsters in control of illegal gambling!
There are a few notable exceptions; cases in which the state legislature is taking steps to bring about a long-overdue reform (and these will be acknowledged in later chapters). But, for the most part, the laws which proscribe an individual's sexual activities are being left on the books--or removed through decisions of the courts.
There are those who feel that this is as it should be. But, before the courts (with their heavy backlog of cases) will undertake to review a law, there must be a prosecution under it. Which means that someone must be arrested and charged; that he (or she) must hire legal counsel; take time from a job (if the arrestee hasn't already been discharged for being arrested on a sex charge); and go through the complicated, expensive and exhausting experience of trial and possible appeals, plus the accompanying public disapproval.
Unfortunately, most people--even the majority of those who feel strongly that the law should be changed--are extremely reluctant toward martyrdom of this sort. It may be looked upon by the defendants as a "test" case--but the penalty is very real should they fail the test. Really, reforming a law via the courts should be the very last resort because the members of the states' legislatures are chosen and paid to see to the legal code of the state, to enact the needed laws and to adjust the existing laws to meet the conditions of the day.
Some may object, may say that, if the laws aren't enforced, why alter them, why not just leave them as 'dead letter' laws?
Not only is the violator of such laws susceptible to blackmail, but there is nothing to say that a prosecutor, in an effort to make a name for himself, or to curb the activities of some person, or group, he opposes, couldn't dust off such a law and prosecute under it.
Furthermore, fear of violating the law, even an unjust law, can have a disastrous effect on people. This is particularly true in cases where the law deals with sexual activity; as in the following case: Tom A... 26 years old, the manager of a loan company office. By working part-time and by virtue of a scholarship, he'd managed to get a college degree, although his family was lower middle class and the majority of boys in his old neighborhood didn't finish high school.
While in college, Tom fell in love with Alice, a year his senior, and they were married shortly after he graduated. She was from a higher social stratum than Tom, but she didn't mind the small apartment they lived in at first, because she was sure Tom would advance with the firm (which he did).
Alice was a plain girl, and hadn't dated much, and Tom had had to seduce her on their wedding night. After that, while she was seldom unwilling to have intercourse with him, she was completely passive, letting him take her as he wanted.
Due to his background, Tom had had quite a bit of experience with women before he married Alice and he knew she was not experiencing the full pleasure of sex. However, he felt she was a 'high-class lady' and, probably, didn't expect to receive pleasure from intercourse. He didn't know that she lay awake, long after he'd gone to sleep, wishing he had satisfied her.
Gradually, as she became more frustrated, Alice began to be less receptive to Tom's suggestions that they have intercourse, although she never flatly refused him if he insisted. Since they were in the process of redecorating a house they had just bought, with Alice doing a lot of the work herself, Tom accepted her excuse that she was tired.
Despite his background, Tom had, because of the desires of a girl he'd dated before he met Alice, become accustomed to performing cunnilingus (oral stimulation of the female genitals), and had even developed a liking for the act. In addition, he knew it was visually sufficient to arouse any woman, fully.
However, he was afraid to try it with Alice, for several reasons. In the first place, after having broken up with Bonnie, Tom had dated several other girls and had performed cunnilingus on all but one of them--but, with Sue, the exception, two things had happened: First, as he had been kissing her legs and moving toward her genitals, she had used her hands to shield them from his lips and she'd told him that what he wanted to do was 'nasty'; then, as he'd continued to try to persuade her to submit, they'd been interrupted by a member of the campus police force. And, while Sue was rearranging her clothing, the campus police officer had told Tom that it was a good thing he hadn't been caught by the city police, because "For what you were doing, you could get 20 years." (This was the first time Tom had been informed that the act was illegal.) Then, after he and Alice were married, they'd gone on a picnic and walked through the woods of a state park. As they had passed a thicket, Tom had suggested they slip into it and have intercourse. Alice had refused, indignantly, on the grounds that they would be in trouble if they were caught.
Because of this, the idea strengthened that she was too 'high-class' to submit to it (Sue and Alice were from the same social stratum), and because of his fear of getting involved with the law as a result of performing such an act, Tom never suggested to Alice that she let him perform cunnilingus on her before they had intercourse. Even after he became aware that she wasn't happy in bed with him and that her restlessness was due to her inability to receive satisfaction, he refrained, although he was sure it would solve her inability to reach a climax.
Alice began to dread intercourse more and more and she became active in several community organizations. She said it was expected of her, but her interest in them really stemmed from their providing her with an excuse for being tired, after the redecorating was finished.
Tom, in the meantime, although he loved Alice, was beginning to look at other women with increasing interest. He didn't want to have to turn to other women for sexual gratification, but Alice's passivity and the infrequency of their relations was beginning to make him tense and nervous; in addition, he was beginning to miss not performing cunnilingus and he thought that, if he had an affair with a woman from his own social level, he could do so without risking too much.
* * *
It should be apparent from the above that this was a case where a fear of the law and a fear that it would be invoked, was at the root of the problem, insofar as Tom was concerned. Because he was afraid that Alice would seek a divorce if he tried to stimulate her orally, and that he might find himself involved with the law if she did, he refrained from even suggesting it. And, because he wasn't satisfying her, Alice was becoming frustrated and edgy and avoiding him.
However, before their unhappy sex fives drove them to a divorce court, something happened to Tom and Alice that solved their problem.
* * *
They had begun to run around with a crowd of young executives and their wives, all of whom considered themselves to be 'sophisticated' and 'modem'; because knowing these people and being accepted by them would benefit Tom's career.
At a party one night (when Tom and Alice had drunk more than usual) it was suggested the men trade wives for the night.
Tom was silent about this, until he saw Alice was going along, although more from a desire not to appear a prude than because she wanted sex with someone else. But, when Tom saw she had agreed, he said he was willing, since it offered him an opportunity to perform cunnilingus and gain satisfaction without the feeling of having 'cheated on' Alice.
There was a good deal of banter as the process of selecting the temporary partners was set up; with the men saying they hoped they got this or that woman as their partner. In a burst of candor, Tom blurted out: "I don't care who I get, just as long as she lets me kiss it."
The remark was greeted with hoots of laughter, in which Tom joined, not noticing the hurt look in Alice's eyes.
* * *
After spending the night at the woman's home, Tom returned to his own to find Alice packing. When he asked what the matter was, she told him that she was disgusted that he would perform cunnilingus with a casual partner but would refuse to do it with her, and that she was leaving him, since she'd decided he didn't love her.
Tom was amazed and it showed. "You... you mean, you wouldn't care if I did it to you?" he asked, incredulously.
"I'd love it if you did," Alice replied. "I've wanted you to everytime we've made love. But you didn't care enough about me to even suggest it."
Tom hastened to explain why he hadn't done so, and admitted that he'd had the desire since before they were married. "But," he added, "you always acted like it was just a duty to you, you were always so passive, I figured you'd get mad."
Alice looked at him. "I... I thought you would get mad, or be upset, if I let myself go. I thought you expected me to be demure and passive. You always acted as if you thought I was delicate and tender and I thought I'd shake you up if I displayed a real interest in sex, or any real passion. And, it got to be a habit for me to He there and just submit."
Tom pulled her hard against him and kissed her hungrily as he forced her down on the bed. One of his hands, then both, began caressing her. He was too impatient to stop to undress her, so he ripped her clothes away and caressed her naked body for several minutes, until she opened his fly and began to fondle him.
At that point, Tom slid his mouth over her body, paused at her pointy breasts for a minute, then went lower and began to satisfy their desire, until his oral stimulation caused Alice to reach orgasm.
Then she showed her real nature by pushing him down on his back on the floor and throwing herself upon him, assuming the superior position and moving happily while Tom stripped the remnants of her clothes away and fondled her until they both reached a climax.
Tom and Alice spent the rest of the weekend reveling in various techniques with each other, exploring their desires, and, in general, acting as if they were on a honeymoon.
Since that weekend, Tom has stopped looking speculatively at other women and Alice has reduced her community activities to a more normal level, spending only one or two evenings a week at them. Consequently, she is seldom tired, when Tom suggests they make love.
* * *
Of course, removing the legal proscription in a case like the above, would be only part of the needed therapy. Men like Tom would have to overcome their own fears and inbred prejudices about cunnilingus; just as their wives would have to overcome their prejudices and reluctance in sexual expression.
But, removal of the legal proscription would be a big step forward, since it would allow for more discussion of such sexual activity as cunnilingus and the various positions for intercourse. Had Tom felt able to talk about his desire with Alice, they could have resolved their difficulties at the start of their marriage.
* * *
There are those who would claim that Tom A... was a pervert, because of his desire. However, there is no truth in such a claim!
Research statistics show that almost half of the married men in this country have performed cunnilingus on their wives. Since there were, according to the 1960 census, 42 million married men in America, that would mean roughly 20 million perverts (if cunnilingus is a perversion)--and there are only 22 countries with a total population of over 20 million. (It must be remembered that the 20 million figure applies only to those men who have performed cunnilingus; it doesn't apply to those who have merely wanted to do so, or to the wives who have had the act performed on them.) To those who hold cunnilingus to be a perversion, I would offer a paraphrase of a French axiom: 20 million Americans can't be wrong... or perverted!
CHAPTER THREE
It is not uncommon for a man (or a woman) who is indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners, or who leads a very active sex life, to be described as being like an animal; but, just because it is common, doesn't mean it is true.
To begin with, many species of animals mate for life, and animals, normally, indulge in sex only when the female is in heat (able to conceive).
On the other hand, in humans, the drive toward sexual intercourse is one of the strongest motivational forces. Various schools of psychiatrists hold differing views as to the reason behind the strength of the sex drive, but all agree it is one of the five strongest.
Some people are able to sublimate their sex drives; that is, they direct their energy into other activities. But there is still a large number of people whose sex drive is always functioning at a high peak.
Not all of these people are constantly engaging in sexual activity, however. For some, there is a fear of social censure, for others, there is the lack of an available partner.
And, for everyone, no matter if he sublimates or not, there are legal barriers on the way toward a sex life as full as he wishes it to be. These barriers take many forms, not the least of which have to do with the selection of a partner.
Alex B... 22 had finished his sophomore year in college when financial problems caused him to drop out. Because he had trouble finding a job as the result of his draft status, he enlisted in the Army and, after finishing his basic training, he was sent to a service school to learn radio repairs.
At that point, Alex's life took on many aspects similar to that of his life as a civilian: He had a room he shared with another man, and things were much as they had been in college, particularly when he was given a pass that allowed him to leave base anytime he was off duty.
Alex was from the midwest and, other than an aptitude for electronics, he had little in common with the other men attending the school, so he began to spend his free time alone.
During one of his evenings away from the base, he stopped at an inviting looking roadhouse and was quietly drinking a beer when an attractive looking blonde sat next to him (despite the fact that customers were few and the bar was only half full). The girl produced a driver's license when asked for identification and was served the mixed drink she ordered.
Alex wasn't shy around girls, had dated his share of them in high school and college, and, while he'd known most of them through classes or school activities, he still felt sure of himself when he began a conversation with the blonde next to him (after she'd asked him to pass her an ashtray). And, when she seemed pleased by his attention, he began turning on the charm.
Alex figured that, at the most, he'd get to do a little necking with the girl (who'd introduced herself as Jo Anne R... ) and be allowed to see her again on a more formal date. She was a sparkling conversationalist and had a delightfully curved body, revealed by the tight black sheath, and Alex didn't mind dating such a girl for five or six dates before they got down to any serious petting.
Because of this, Alex was surprised when JoAnne suggested that, rather than paying for more drinks, he just buy a bottle and some mix; then the two of them could adjourn to a place where they could be alone and more comfortable. And when she suggested that the motel across the highway would be a good place, Alex almost fell off of his stool.
There was "o trouble renting a room at the motel, no questions about the girl in the car; so, shortly after they'd left the bar, Alex was putting the bottle of vodka and the cokes on the dresser top and turning to JoAnne. She smiled at him and came easily to him as he took her in his arms, and her kiss was enthusiastic as she met his.
Alex figured it was going to be quite an evening. It was, but not the type he had imagined.
Because it was a Friday night, and he was free for the weekend, Alex figured on taking his time and making a long night of it and JoAnne seemed to like the idea. So, after a kiss that left them trembling, Alex mixed drinks while JoAnne took a transistor radio from her large purse and dialed a station that broadcasted soft music. They alternated sipping their drinks and dancing, although the latter wasn't too successful because of JoAnne's high heels and the rug. Finally, as Alex was mixing the second round of drinks, she decided to remove her shoes and stockings.
"Let me?" Alex asked when JoAnne told him what she'd decided. She nodded and took the glass he offered her as he sat beside her and inched her skirt up to the top of her legs. Slowly, so he could look at the finely-turned limbs and caress them in the process, Alex unhooked her stockings from the garter-belt and rolled them down as JoAnne raised each leg in turn. And, when her legs were bare, Alex kept his hand high on one as he kissed her.
They danced some more as they finished their second drink; then, since they had been necking more than dancing, they moved back to the bed and sat holding each other tightly as their tongues excited each other, increasingly.
Alex leaned back further and further, until he was reclining on the bed, with JoAnne above him. His hands slid around to her buttocks and she began opening his shirt, then ran her hands over his bare chest while he pulled the zipper of her dress down.
With a smile, JoAnne rose to her feet and let Alex lift the sheath over her head, then she posed in her enticing black underwear as Alex slipped out of his shirt, shoes and socks. When Alex swiveled around until he was lying in the center of the bed, she just smiled and slipped in beside him, once again lifting herself over him partially.
From then on, there was less inhibition in their actions; JoAnne proved to be a knowing partner, used her lips on Alex's face, neck and chest in a way that soon had his breath coming in short gasps.
His actions too were effective, his kisses and caresses made her squirm against him, and it wasn't long until she was opening his trousers and pushing them down his legs while he parted the hooks of her brassiere. Then their discarded garments were tossed to the floor, Alex rolled JoAnne onto her back and ran his mouth down to the swollen mounds of her breasts. As his lips closed over one taut nipple, she began to whimper ecstatically and her fingers caressed his cheeks, guiding his head back and forth from one breast to the other and into the depths of her cleavage.
One of her hands caressed the back of his neck and the other slipped into his under-shorts to clutch at him. As she let her hand squeeze his potency, Alex bit lightly at the tip of a breast and he ran one of his hands under the elastic of her panties and down to the juncture of her legs.
They were just starting to divest each other of the last garment between themselves and total nudity when the door to the room opened and a police officer stepped inside and told them to dress and come with him. With the other patrons of the motel, they were taken to the station house and told to identify themselves. And, when Alex heard the other's being charged, he was glad he and JoAnne had been interrupted when they had, a few minutes more and the police would have had a charge to place against JoAnne and him.
Then one of the raiding officers caught a glimpse of JoAnne and stated that she was only 15. And, the next thing Alex knew, he was being charged with 'contributing to the delinquency of a minor.' A lawyer told him that he was lucky, if he'd been caught having intercourse with her, the charge would have been statutory rape--despite the fact JoAnne had identified herself as being of age.
Because, when it deals with consideration of underage girls, the law takes no notice of the circumstances involved. If the girl is underage, whether she says so or not, the man is guilty, the fact that she claimed to be of age is immaterial.
It's immaterial, that is, in all but three states. In those states, if the man can support his claim that he believed her to be of age, he can't be found guilty of statutory rape.
This follows a decision of the California Supreme Court (in People vs. Hernandez, 393. P. 2nd 673/39 Cal. Rep. 361) where the judges accepted the defense position that Section 20 of the Penal Code applied. This section says that no criminal act exists when "... an ignorance or mistake of fact which disproves a criminal intent... " exists. (In other words, the judges ruled that, for a man to be guilty of statutory rape, he must have intended to have intercourse with an underage girl.) After the decision, Illinois and New Mexico enacted legislation which provided for a defense in statutory rape cases based on an honest mistake with regard to the girls' ages. This brought the law in California, Illinois and New Mexico in line with its ideal; for, in the majority of cases, the law must prove that there was the intent to commit a criminal act before a conviction can be secured.
Just how unfair the refusal to consider the circumstances involved can be is demonstrated in the following case: Carl D... a middle-aged traveling salesman, was approached by a man in a bar and asked if he was interested in having a woman. Carl was wary at first, since he was a stranger and not sure whether the man was actually a pimp, or engaged in some type of con game. However, when the man showed him some colored photos of the girl, in the nude, Carl's interest grew. When the man said he could pay the girl, Carl thought of her plump breasts and full thighs and he was sold.
At the address he was sent to, Carl was slightly disappointed, because it was obvious that the girl had been specially displayed for the photos. Still, the price was only $10 and he was lonely, so he decided to stay.
The girl led him through a shabby living room to an equally shabby bedroom, where she slipped off her robe and flopped on the unmade bed. As he undressed, Carl couldn't help noticing that she needed a bath and that she also seemed to be drunk.
Still, she performed with more than adequate skill, and her fleshy body was comfortable under him, so comfortable that Carl wondered about another session. He mentioned this and the girl told him that it would be okay, that the pimp (her husband) wouldn't send another customer over until she'd let him know it was okay. Carl handed over more money and settled down to enjoy himself once more.
But, before he could get started there was a crash, as the front door of the apartment was splintered. In a minute, the room was full of policemen.
This was something that had happened to Carl before, and he assumed that the result would be the same--a fine, if that. To his surprise, when he was brought before the judge, the charge was statutory rape, since the girl was found to be a month shy of her eighteenth birthday.
Carl was lucky, in a way. He hired a lawyer and fought the case; but, despite the fact that the girl had a record of prostitution dating back to her fourteenth year; despite the fact that she looked as if she were in her mid-twenties, and despite the fact that she was married, Carl was found guilty. However, because his lawyer had brought out the girl's past, the judge was lenient and suspended the sentence.
(In a similar case--State vs. Snow, 252 S.W. Rep. 629--which occurred in 1923, the judge went so far as to speak in behalf of the defendants--six boys in their mid-teens--saying that they "... are more sinned against than sinners... " when they were charged with the statutory rape of a prostitute.) Not only has the statutory rape law in America been anomalous in not providing a defense based on a mistaken belief in a girl's age--as well as refusing to take the circumstances into account--the wide variations in these laws are unfair, also to the girl involved, as we shall show shortly. (Some states, be it noted--West Virginia is one--do provide a defense based on the girl's being known to be of "... previously unchaste character... " (Sec. 5390) that is, not being a virgin and having participated in sexual intercourse with a number (in some states a specified number) of men.) In support of the statement, above, that the wide variations in the laws of different states is unfair to both the statutory rapist and the statutory rapee, consider this: If, in the State of Delaware, a girl seven years of age is considered to be of sufficient maturity to be legally permitted consent to sexual intercourse, how, then, may she become too young by moving to the State of Tennessee where the law requires that she be 21 years of age to consent legally? The act of crossing a state line, here results in a weird sort of tic-tac-toe.
In theory, statutory rape laws are supposed to protect young girls from seducers. But it is debatable whether they do so, particularly in this era, with all the emphasis which our society places upon sex. It is also debatable whether, in this country, a girl who had reached junior high school age, could be seduced, if she did not want to be.
When the statutory rape laws were enacted, most of the legislators held to the idea that a woman had no interest in sex at all but submitted only as a duty. The idea that a child, or an adolescent, could have an interest in sex was, under this premise, unthinkable.
And, while both ideas have been changed, the law hasn't. We know now that, with the advent of puberty (between the age of 10 and 13 normally), the sex drive intensifies. And we know that children as young as four or five are curious about sex in a general way.
The teenage girl, conditioned for years to the idea that her destiny lies in being beautiful and loved, and conditioned to the idea that love and sex are tied together in a Gordian knot, is, naturally, curious about sex. Her body will be changing and this will add to her curiosity. And our dating patterns are geared to creating situations where experimentation with sex will take place.
Just a glance at the statistics will prove that teenagers do have a sexual interest and appetite. In 1965 alone, 6776 girls under the age of 15 bore illegitimate babies (some of them for the second or third time). There were also over 100,000 divorces where the female was under 20.
Teenagers don't have sexual curiosity and sex fives? One more statistic then: In a 'typical' California town, over 60% of the girls in the graduating class in high school will have lost their virginity by the time they get their diplomas.
The age of consent in America is (on the average) much higher than it is in other countries, and very much higher than it was in antiquity. For example, the ancient Jews allowed marriage to a girl of THREE! (Even today it is almost impossible to find a virgin among girls over 10, among the Arabs and Jews along the Southern or Eastern Mediterranean, except in Israel.) In medieval times, the age of consent was set at 10.
Throughout history men have known that teenagers were not only capable of sexual appetites, but that they satisfied them. The most famous heroine of literature--Juliet--was only 13, the same age as Cleopatra at the time of her first marriage. Helen of Troy was 12 and the other heroines of classic literature were nymphets. It's only, comparatively, in recent times that girls have been expected to refrain from sexual intercourse until they were in their late teens or early twenties.
There are people who would say that the rising birth rate (and the rising percentage of illegitimate births) among teenagers, is a good reason for the retention of statutory rape laws.
But, despite the severity of the laws as they now stand, the number of births (and illegitimate births) among teenagers continues to rise. It appears then that, just as capital punishment is no deterrent to murder, so the stiff penalty for statutory rape is no deterrent to teenage sex.
When one considers the number of teenage marriages and the estimate that 40 to 65% of these marriages take place because the girl is pregnant, it becomes apparent that the law is not able to prevent teenage sex, and it's time that the legislators acknowledge the fact and try something else. Just what they should try will be discussed in a later chapter.
CHAPTER FOUR
It should be perfectly apparent to the reader, at this point, that sex and too-young girls may not be combined, legally. From this it might be inferred, by some men, that--by making sure his partner was of legal age for consent--he might play to his heart's content, confident he was not breaking the law.
This attitude of mind is just as riddled with pitfalls as the overall picture of state laws, relating to the age of consent. So the fact that the girl is of legal age is no guarantee of immunity to violating the law.
* * *
Paul M--, a 25-year-old ex-serviceman and college senior, has known Kim T--, (four years younger than Paul), all her life. The parents of the two are good friends.
Paul and Kim go to the same university, a day's drive from their hometown but, because of the difference in their ages, their curriculums and their other interests, they don't see too much of each other on the large campus.
However, every time Paul goes home for a weekend or a holiday, he asks Kim in she wants to ride with him; knowing she'll insist on sharing the expense and the parents will be grateful for the favor and the convenience for Kim's sake...
The final class before the Easter holiday ended at five in the afternoon on Wednesday before Easter and Paul and Kim, rather than wait to start the following morning (as most students were doing), decided to drive all night.
However, after leaving the campus at seven, they ran into a weather front which dumped sheets of rain over the countryside and, as Paul crept along-now and then having to pull off the road because it rained so hard he just couldn't see--he wished they'd waited until morning. At least they'd have gotten a good night's sleep.
Finally, disgusted, he gave up to the weather and fatigue. "We're going to have to stop overnight somewhere," he said. "We can call my folks--and they can call yours--and tell them. I'll pay your hotel bill, but I just can't take any more of this."
"Don't bother calling," Kim said, "unless you said when you were leaving. If they think we were starting in the morning, it won't make any difference."
Paul agreed and began to peer through the downpour for a place to stay. Finally, through the rain, a faint glow developed into a neon sign reading "Hotel" and he asked Kim if this were OK. She just nodded, feeling so beat she didn't care where they stayed.
Leaving her in the car, Paul ran inside and managed to secure two rooms. The clerk was dubious at first but, when Paul asked for rooms not on the same floor, if possible, the clerk registered them. The only rooms available were across the hall from each other. However, Paul wasn't interested in Kim as a date or a bed partner and hoped she wouldn't be offended at the proximity of the rooms.
She told him she didn't mind and he carried her overnight bag to the third floor, leaving Kim at her door. As he opened his door, she turned to say to him: "Paul, I'm so wound up I can't go to sleep right away. How about us going down to the bar for a nightcap? I need something to relax me."
Paul agreed. He was pretty frustrated by the whole thing and a drink would help smooth out his disposition before he turned in. He didn't think he could get to sleep, either, without something to lull his annoyance.
An hour and a half later, after several drinks, Paul and Kim returned to their rooms. Paul waited until Kim went inside, then entered his own room, quickly stripping to his undershorts and stretching and relaxing on the bed, preparatory to going to sleep. It wasn't more than five minutes later that Paul heard a knock at his door. He hopped up to answer it, wondering what...
' As he opened the door, Kim slipped past him, pushing the door closed behind her. A moment later, she'd turned on the bedside lamp and stretched, with an inviting smile, on Paul's bed. Though Kim wasn't his type, the fact of her compact figure, clad only in a black bra and panties, lying on his bed, caused an immediate reaction.
"Lock the door and come here," Kim whispered, stretching her arms toward him.
While Paul wouldn't have made a pass at her under normal conditions, he wasn't about to turn down this invitation and, within seconds, they were locked in a close embrace. He was surprised at her wantonness, but pleasantly; and, as their excitement developed, he soon had her completely nude and was eagerly kissing her breasts, his hands wandering to their mutual stimulation; the while Kim was stripping him and returning his caresses with practised skill.
"Ohhh, baby, I like that" she whispered, as he bit gently on a nipple, "I like that a lot." As she spoke, she tugged at him and Paul moved swiftly between her thighs. Kim guided him to her and locked her thighs around him, then started moving her pelvis as he thrust vigorously in concert. Happily she pulled up his head from her breasts and glued her mouth to his, filling his with her tongue as he clutched at her solid buttocks.
* * *
Most men would say that Paul was a lucky guy. He may be; but he's also a sex criminal, as is Kim-unless they happen to be in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont or Washington; for all the other states (and the District of Columbia) make fornication (sexual intercourse in which the partners are not married to each other) illegal, punishable by fine ($10 to $1,000) or jail (30 days to two years)... Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Wyoming require both.
Since an estimated 90% of the male population of this country have indulged in non-marital intercourse, that's a lot of law-breakers.
And again, the law takes no account of circumstances. Kim and Paul could have been engaged, even due to be married the next day, and they still would have been guilty.
To show just how confused the laws dealing with sex really are, let's assume that Paul and Kim have crossed a state line in the course of the trip, and that Paul tells a friend about the unexpected bonus he got for giving Kim a ride home. The friend (whom we'll call Mike), decides to offer Kim a chance to go home a couple of weekends later, hoping to reap a reward similar to the one Paul received. However, when his car 'develops engine trouble' and they're forced to stay at a motel, all Mike gets is a kiss on the cheek as he dances with Kim. But, strange as it seems, Mike has committed an even worse (in terms of severity of punishment) crime than Paul did! For, while all Paul did was accept what was offered him, Mike took Kim on a trip with the idea of having sex with her on the way. And, in doing so, Mike violated a Federal statute.
That's right--as if it weren't bad enough (with all of the states having conflicting laws dealing with the regulation of a person's sex life) the Federal government has them too.
Officially known as the White-Slave Traffic Act (Title 18, Chapter 117, Sec. 2421), but more commonly called The Mann Act (after its author) it was originally designed to curb the shipment of prostitutes from one state to another. However, the law has been held to apply to non-commercial sex as well and can be used against people who did no more than travel from one state to another and continue an affair. Furthermore, as in Mike's cases, there need not be actual sexual relations for the law to be invoked; all that's required is that there be an intent to have such relations in the mind of the man.
In addition, the subterfuge of letting the girl out on one side of the line and letting her walk across to picked up in the next state, won't go. The law says you are guilty, if you "... transport, cause to be transported, or aid or assist in obtaining transportation... " for the girl.
However, should the girl initiate the idea of driving to the next state for purposes of sexual intercourse, no violation exists. Now, if she persuades a girl friend to drive her across--and the girl friend knows what is planned--the friend is guilty! However, if the original girl is already in the next state and arranges for her girl friend to drive a male across the line for fun and games, there is no violation. There's no provision in the Mann Act covering transportation of a man.
Another fact: through interpretations of the Mann Act, the peculiar situation occurs which puts the Federal Government in the position of approving almost anyone's being transported across a state line rather than someone bent on sex. A female killer, safecracker, forger, or arsonist you may haul across, safe from prosecution under the Mann Act--so long as you haven't considered having sex with her before you go.
That's the fuse... the courts have held that you must have had the intent before you started the trip! You may take off with no intention of going to bed with a girl (as in the case of Paul and Kim), then have something start; from that point you may fornicate your way clear across the country, safe in the fact that your purity of mind upon leaving the original state, makes you immune to Federal prosecution!
So, now you may think now that all a man has to do is move to a state with no fornication statute, stay there, and make sure the girl involved is over the age of consent and he can't get in trouble. Don't bet on that. Consider the following case:
* * *
Larry N... and Bev T... dated fairly steadily for several months and he was able to pet heavily with her after the first six weeks. But, she resisted all of his attempts to get her into bed, explaining that she was determined to save her virginity for her husband.
Larry, on more than one occasion, thought of breaking up with Bev, but then he would think of her high firm breasts and her long, finely-turned legs, of the passionate way she kissed and caressed him, and he'd decide to see her again.
He tried everything he could to seduce her, tried to persuade her that it wasn't healthy for them to get so worked up and then resort to artificial means of appeasement (such as mutual masturbation), or to get her so aroused that she would go along if he refused to satisfy her any other way; but these attempts failed too. Bev was determined to remain a virgin for the man she was going to marry, whoever he was.
Then Larry had what he thought was a great idea. That night when he took her out, he asked, in a casual manner, what she thought of fall weddings. When Bev asked why he was interested, he replied: "Well, if we saved enough, we should be able to marry then." As she squealed, he grinned.
That night he was careful not to let things get out of hand. In fact, they didn't pet as heavily as they normally did. And, the next time they went out, he stopped several times in front of store windows and commented on various suites of furniture, asking Bev if she liked them, or saying they would be nice for 'their' place.
Several weeks passed and, although he hadn't mentioned a ring or said anything about telling her parents that they were engaged, Bev was sure that he was going to marry her. She was so sure that she started making payments on a trousseau.
When she told him this, Larry took the next step in his plan. "You know," he said, "we could save even more money if we didn't go out so much, if we just watched TV. at your house. It would be almost like going to the movies."
"Except for my parents, my brothers and sisters and my grandmother being there," Bev answered. "I couldn't neck with you with them all there."
"Well, I guess that's out then," Larry said. "Because I don't think you'll come up to my place."
"Why not?" Bev asked, reacting the way he'd hoped she would. "After all, when two people are as serious about each other as we are, they can be alone if they want."
"Then why don't we go up and listen to records," he asked, "instead of going to a movie we don't want to see? We can get a six-pack and dance and save that much more." Bev agreed.
Larry put on soft, slow music and, after they'd had a beer, he began to dance with her, holding her close. They were in what amounted to a mobile embrace, his hands on her saucy buttocks, hers around his neck and it was no problem for him to kiss her as they danced. Bev's only reaction was to press even closer to him. She didn't seem to notice as he steered her into the bedroom.
And, when he maneuvered her to a seated position on the bed, she didn't seem to mind. They continued to kiss and gradually Larry pressed her back until she was lying half on the bed, with him above her.
Finally the kiss ended and Larry excused himself to get more beer. When he returned, Bev had swung around and was leaning against the headboard, with her feet on the bed. Larry handed her a beer, knowing that two loosened her inhibitions considerably. Then he sat beside her and slipped one arm around her, resting his palm against her breast. As they drank, they paused now and then for a long, deep kiss.
Larry set his empty bottle on the floor, took Bev's from her and deposited it, then slid to a fully reclining position and pulled her down beside him. As his mouth met hers, he closed his hands over her breasts.
The next time they parted for air, Bev's sweater was bunched at her armpits and her bra was loose over her breasts. With a grin, Larry flipped the bra back and looked at her, then pinched lightly at her nipples, then bent his head to them. When he pulled back the next time, her skirt was up and he had worked her panties down to her knees.
"We'd better stop, Larry," she told him solemnly, trying to tug his hand away from her.
"Why?" he asked her, shifting his hand to her bottom.
"Because we still can now," she replied. "And, if we keep going, we might not be able to." She raised her panties.
"So? Why stop?" he asked, lowering his head to kiss her erect nipples once more.
"I've told you and told you," Bev said, exasperatedly, "I'm not going to go all the way except with the man I marry."
"And who's that going to be?" Larry asked gently as he lowered her panties again.
She brightened. "That's right. I... I guess I don't have to worry any more, do I?"
Larry pulled her close and kissed her again. His hand continued to lower her panties. But, Bev pushed him away. Now what, he wondered. "Would you go out for a minute," she asked. "Please?"
He didn't know what she had in mind, but he left the room. And, when he returned, at her call, she was lying under the sheet. He saw her clothes hung neatly over a chair and knew she was nude. "I forgot to pull the shade, and there's a light in the other room," she whispered. Larry took care of them, then undressed hurriedly. In less than a minute he was lying beside her, his mouth hard on hers as he held her tightly to him, flattening her pointy breasts against his broad chest as his hands moved over her buttocks and thighs, until she parted her legs of her own accord. Larry moved until he was in position. "I love you," he whispered, then sealed her mouth with his to prevent her from crying out as he moved slowly forward to breach her maidenhood.
The only reaction she gave was a sudden digging of her nails into his shoulders. Then she tried to help him as he moved toward his completion.
After it was finished for him, he rolled away from her and lay on his back, breathing heavily. "Was it good for you?" Bev whispered.
He didn't detect any bitterness in her voice, but he got an idea that she might be upset because she hadn't reached a climax. "Wasn't it okay for you?" he asked, trying his best to appear concerned.
"Sure, it was wonderful," Bev told him and Larry knew she was lying. He slipped his arms around her and held her.
"Don't worry," he whispered, "it'll get better as you get used to it." He stroked her back until his breathing was back to normal, then slipped a hand between her thighs and fondled her expertly until she arched her hips in climax.
Bev kissed him wetly. "We're going to be very happy after we get married," she told him. "I want you to teach me all about sex, what I should do to make you happy."
"Next lesson this weekend?" Larry answered. Bev agreed without hesitation and, after a few minutes, when he suggested it was time for her to get home, she seemed reluctant to go.
Larry noticed this reluctance on her part to leave on the next few occasions they had sex and he didn't have too much trouble persuading her to tell her parents she was going to spend the night with a girl friend, then sleep with him.
Larry and Bev were intimate three or four times a week all of the summer. And, by the middle of August, Larry was no longer surprised by her reactions to his lovemaking. She was still nice to take to bed, but he wasn't ready to settle down; and he decided it was time to break off the affair.
From then on he began to see less of her, saying he was working late. And, when they were together, he was less easy to please and began to quarrel with her. Finally, as September drew to a close and she began asking him pointedly when they were going to get married, he told her: "Well, I don't know. I don't think it's a good idea, the way things have been going between us lately. Maybe we should just call the whole thing off, admit we made a mistake, and forget it."
"But you said you were going to marry me," Bev wailed. "I wouldn't have gone to bed with you if I hadn't thought you were going to marry me. You can't change your mind."
"I already have," Larry replied. "If you don't like it, sue me." He thought he was being funny, but he didn't laugh when the police knocked on his door and told him he was under arrest; not when a lawyer told him, yes, seduction was a crime, particularly when it's accomplished through an offer of marriage.
Larry thought it over and the next day he called Bev. They were married the following weekend, which canceled the charge against him, since Bev could no longer testify. But, the odds are that, with the kind of start they had, they will end up in a divorce court.
It should be pointed out, here, that--in certain states--Bev could have sued Larry. The technical term is breach-of-promise and one jury awarded $450,000 damages in one action (the court reduced it to $150,000) which is a pretty high price to pay for misleading a girl into bed with a false prospect of marriage (as in the above case). In an instance in which a man suffers an honest change of heart in the course of such a courtship, this is ridiculous!
There's something else about this breach-of-promise situation: it's totally one-sided. A girl can change her mind and refuse to marry a man after she's accepted his proposal of marriage with no let nor hindrance from the law. And, she may keep anything he has given her during their time of togetherness...
CHAPTER FIVE
Ask a number of people to name, (quickly and without studying over the answer) a sex crime and most of them will reply: "Rape". It's the most popular answer, "off the top of the head"; thus, it would seem, rape is the sex crime about which people know most, from newspaper accounts of such attacks and/or reprints of trial testimony in the press.
However, when this "average answer" is given, it is usually with this picture in mind: An unescorted woman on a lonely street at night being dragged into an alley by a rapist, who rips her clothing and forces her to submit to him. There is, usually, an accompanying overtone of peril... the attacker threatens his victim with a knife or gun; perhaps he stuns her with a blow. The next most widely-held concept is that of a number of men (a teen-age or young adult gang) forcing a lone girl to submit to them all. In this case, the peril of the numbers arrayed against her is generally all the force needed to make the girl submit.
Rapes, such as those described above, do occur-- far more often than are reported to the authorities.
But there are several things out of drawing with the popularly-held picture of the act.
Initially, many experts are of the opinion that, in the majority of cases, the attacker is known to the victim! Further--and more important--the majority of rapes (reported and unreported) do not take place so dramatically--and this statement does not include statutory rape.
Mickey K... 22, and a high school dropout, worked as a laborer in a warehouse and dated Betsy R... 20, a secretary in the warehouse office. But, since neither of them were interested in settling down, they both dated other people.
Betsy was a coquettish brunette, short, but with a generously endowed body which she displayed beneath tight clothes, or in blouses, with exaggerated, "plunging" necklines and short skirts. In addition, she was a master of double entendre remarks, had a large stock of suggestive jokes and a reputation for being a "hot number".
It was because of her reputation (in addition to her big breasts and solid buttocks) that Mickey dated her. But he wasn't able to get as far as he expected (and wanted) to; because, although Betsy was willing to pet heavily, if it seemed inevitable that intercourse was likely, she would find an excuse to end the evening's activity.
Three months passed, during which Mickey and Betsy dated at least once a week, without his ever being able to get her into bed. He'd never had that much trouble scoring with a girl before and he began to think Betsy just didn't care for him; but, when he stopped asking her for dates, she sought him out to ask what was wrong. He explained his thinking to her and was surprised when she said she did like him, then proved it by breaking a date so she could see him that evening.
And, after taking her to dinner and to a dance, Mickey was even more surprised when she invited him up to her two-room apartment. "There's liquor in that cabinet," she said, "so why don't you mix drinks for us while I change?"
In a minute, when the drinks were mixed, she returned, clad in a ballerina length robe that was sheer enough to show she was naked under it. She smiled at him as she took the drink, commenting on its weakness. Then she was bent over, slipping records on the player, and giving Mickey a look at her thighs almost to her buttocks. When the music began, she moved to where he was sitting on the couch and curled up in his lap, with one arm around him and her mouth against his.
Mickey kissed her several times, with much tongue-play, then slid a hand inside the robe and cupped her breast. As she always did, Betsy whispered 'No,' but she made no move to get away from him or to remove the hand that was already drawing her thick nipples into erectness, which was also usual.
As the evening progressed, they shifted on the couch, until they were reclining. Betsy's robe was opened and Mickey ran his hands around to her buttocks, to squeeze them as he kissed her heaving breasts, again she whispered 'No,' but she acted as if she didn't mean it.
Then one of his hands slipped between her thighs and he began to stroke her aroused body. Once more she whispered 'No', but her thighs locked his hand against her and she gave him her mouth in a fiery kiss.
As he excited her, Betsy gasped and her breathing became harder. She unbuttoned his shirt so his chest could meet her breasts in a state of nakedness. Then her hands were fumbling at his belt and fly and she pushed his trousers and shorts down and began to caress him as she writhed on the couch and kissed him frantically.
From the way she was acting, and reacting, Mickey figured that tonight was the night, that she was ready to surrender. He moved a knee between hers and spread her thighs, then rolled above her. When his genital brushed hers, she wrenched her mouth free from his to whisper 'No' again, but she didn't repeat it and she didn't try to evade him as he pressed forward and penetrated her. Instead, her legs came up to wrap around him and she thrust as ardently as he did.
Betsy R... was raped!
* * *
Rape is defined as: "... gaining carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent... " and, while there is usually an element of force involved, it need not be present. The key portion of the law is involved with the woman's consent; and when force is used, it's to coerce the woman into consenting against her will. But, when a girl says "no" and the man ignores her, he is raping her--the girl doesn't have to do anything to try to prevent him from penetrating her! (The girl can always claim that she was afraid to try to prevent him for fear the man would hurt her and, whether he said anything to give her that impression or not, she'll be believed.) So, if a girl says "no", the man would do well to assume she means it, if he wants to avoid trouble with the law.
And, actually, the girl doesn't even have to say "no" for it to be considered rape!
In the case above, if Mickey had mixed stronger drinks, or if Betsy had had several, she could still have placed a rape charge against him, because the law holds that a woman, when intoxicated, no longer has the ability to reason logically, and therefore, her consent is invalid.
(This is simply an extension of the theory that a feeble-minded woman can't consent to intercourse. Both the retarded woman and the drunken woman are held to be incapable of understanding what they are consenting to.)
* * *
There can be no argument that rape, in the classic pattern described at the opening of this chapter, is a heinous crime and that it should be rewarded with stiff punishment. And, surely, we should protect those women who are mentally incapable of understanding what is wanted of them, or who can't understand the possible consequences.
But, what about Mickey K... ? Should he be adjudged a rapist? After all, he didn't use force, he didn't even threaten to use force or to harm Betsy if she didn't submit; all Mickey did was misjudge Betsy's actions and wants.
Or did he?
Psychiatrists tell us that there are women (and perhaps Betsy is one of them) who need to be raped.
For one reason or another, these women cannot surrender to a man, and thus, must be captured. With some females, this mental pattern exists so that they may continue to think of themselves as "pure"; so that they can protect their self-esteem. They've been taught that a "good" girl doesn't have intercourse with a man unless he's her husband. So, when these girls want to have sex, if they're unmarried, they arrange it so they're "raped".
In other cases, the woman has an intense hatred of men, (because of some real or imaginary wrong a man has done her) and she "punishes" men to "avenge" herself. The man whom she charges with rape may not even know the man who "wronged" her, but that's immaterial to the woman.
There is also a type of disturbed woman who must be taken by force. This woman, with strong masochistic ("gaining sexual pleasure and gratification from being dominated, mistreated, or hurt physically or otherwise") desires, will actually invite rape in the classic pattern, either by picking partners who won't take "no" for an answer; by walking unescorted in "rough" or lonely neighborhoods; by undressing in plain view of the street (while leaving her door unlocked); or by sunbathing in the nude in secluded areas.
If anyone doubts that such neurotic women exist, he has only to check the files of any metropolitan police department... the odds are that there will be at least one woman who has been "raped" on more than one occasion.
* * *
Strange as it seems, marriage doesn't end a man's chances of being arrested on a rape charge, even if he is completely faithful to his wife!
In a case reported by Ray Lunt (in Focus Magazine, �, copyright, 1965) a California woman had her husband arrested for raping her. She hadn't been "in the mood" and when her husband pulled her clothes off and had intercourse with her anyway, she yelled for the cops. To her husband's surprise, according to Mr. Lunt, the man had to appeal to the state Supreme Court to be cleared and released from jail--despite the fact that, under Sec.261 of the California Penal Code, it is impossible for a man to rape his wife!
In the other states (unless the courts or legislature has established that a man cannot rape his wife), a husband would be wise to take "no" for an answer from his wife, just as if he were single and she was too.
* * *
The law, when it deals with rape (as in most cases involving sex), is more lenient toward women than men. Not only will the court tend to believe the woman when it's her word against the man's; there is no provision for charging a woman with rape. And don't say it couldn't happen. It not only could, but it has. As in the following:
* * *
Roger L... was a traveling salesman, happily married and glad that he rarely spent more than two nights in a row away from home. Well-meaning and sympathetic, he always stopped at accidents or break-downs to see if he could help and he always picked up hitchhikers. His insurance would cover him if he were robbed and he liked helping people.
On an afternoon in early summer, Roger was driving from one country town to another, when he saw a couple of girls walking along ahead of him. As the car approached, they turned and stuck out their thumbs.
Because they were dressed in tight, short-shorts that displayed every sensual roll of their buttocks, blouses that stretched taut over their youthful breasts and were carrying overnight bags, Roger assumed they were going to a swimming hole on the river, so he stopped to give them a lift.
One of the girls--DeeDee--sat in front, and the other--Pam--got in back, going around the car to sit behind Roger. The girls were both attractive, but Roger wasn't interested. Not only did he know the age of consent was 18, but he'd be home by nine that evening and wouldn't have to stay away overnight for a few days. So, even when DeeDee slid up against him as he went around a curve and failed to move away, he just chatted with them and kept driving, ignoring the full breast that rested against his arm and the thigh that pressed against his.
At the river, Roger slowed, figuring this was their destination; but they said they were going to the next town, so he accelerated again.
Then DeeDee began stroking his thigh. Roger ignored her until she reached his groin and sought to open his fly. Then he told her to move away and to behave. "What's the matter?" she asked. "Don't you want us?"
"You're kids," Roger told her, "and I'm not going to fool around with a couple of kids. Even if I weren't happily married, I wouldn't mess with kids."
"Want to bet?" Pam asked. Then her arm came over the seat and Roger gulped as he saw the knife she was holding. "Turn off into that old road up ahead," she commanded. Roger did and soon found himself driving into a clearing that appeared to be a local lover's lane. The girls told him to stop and Pam held the knife against his throat until DeeDee had gotten out and opened the door on his side of the front. Then DeeDee took the knife and Roger was forced to get out.
The girls were smiling, but Roger felt almost sick, and the feeling intensified when they told him to undress. "I... I... " Roger mumbled, blushing. "Please, take my money, take my car, but leave me alone."
"Shut up," DeeDee told him. "We don't want your money, or your car. You know what we want and you're going to give it to us or we'll cut you into hamburger. Now strip!" A look at her face and Pam's told Roger that they weren't kidding, and he began undressing, resignedly.
The girls fondled him briefly, making lewd comments as they did so. And then Pam began to undress, yanking her knit blouse over her head to reveal her compact breasts and narrow waist. A moment later she'd kicked off her shoes and pushed her shorts and panties off. Her hips were slender, as were her thighs, and her buttocks were boyish; but, as she began to posture lewdly before him, rubbing herself, he found himself reacting in spite of himself.
The girls grinned at each other as they saw him swell. Then Pam took the knife and DeeDee moved in front of him, and Roger, though he would have denied it, found himself looking forward to seeing her naked.
DeeDee made an art of undressing. First she kicked off her shoes and then she opened her shorts and lowered them and her panties. But, the tails of her blouse came down far enough to hide her torso from view, to Roger's disappointment. DeeDee turned and bent over, causing the blouse to shift so that he could see the creamy white half-moons of her buttocks. When she turned again, she began to unbutton her blouse a button at a time, with a pause between each one. And when it was opened to her naval, she spread it so he could see her breasts. Teasingly she slid her arms from the blouse and let it fall, but the two unopened buttons held it closed over her loins. She shook her shoulders, making her heavy breasts sway invitingly, then squeezed them together. Her eyes were slits as she toyed with the nipples until they were erect. Only then did she remove the blouse completely and let him view the curly triangle of hair that proclaimed her a woman.
DeeDee stepped toward him and Pam moved until she was next to her friend. Roger liked the contrast between them: Pam was gaminish, tall with a willowy body, perky breasts and a flat stomach, while DeeDee was shorter and more abundantly fleshed, with the curves of a Rubens model. But they were both appealing creatures and, if Roger hadn't been sure they were underage, he wouldn't have hesitated to serve them.
But, he was certain they were not old enough and so he held back, even when DeeDee wrapped her arms around him and rubbed herself against him as she tried to kiss him.
Then Pam's knees collided with the backs of his, making his legs buckle enough for DeeDee's weight to pull him to the ground upon her. Her mouth squirmed against his and she moved until her thighs were on each side of his hips.
Roger was dimly aware that Pam had knelt beside them and that the knife was against his back. "Do as we tell you," he heard her hiss, "or you'll be sorry." Then she began to tell him what to do to DeeDee to arouse her. He had to kiss and caress the plump form for almost half-an-hour before he was told to proceed, and then he had to work until he had reduced her to limpness.
When DeeDee was recovered, she pushed Roger away from her and sat up, taking the knife from Pam, who flopped onto her back. "It's my turn now," she giggled, reaching for him.
"I don't know whether I can so soon," Roger mumbled.
"You'd better," Pam hissed. "You'd better take care of both of us until we're tired of you. Otherwise... " DeeDee jabbed the knife a little harder at him, breaking the skin.
It took him longer than it had with DeeDee, but Roger was able to bring Pam to a climax. At last, he thought, they'll let me go now. But he was mistaken.
Before the girls were finally satisfied, he'd had to perform with each of them twice more. And, each time, they had been more exotic in their demands, had made him do things to them that had amazed him--although only because they knew about them. And, when they were finally fulfilled, they made him drive them back to where he'd picked them up.
As soon as they were out of the car, Roger raced to the sheriff's office, where he blurted out his story to unbelieving officers. It was only after he'd told the same story three times (and offered to take a He-detector test to prove he wasn't lying) that they agreed to pick the girls up.
Pam and DeeDee readily admitted the truth of Roger's charges and added that, although they'd been giving themselves to passing strangers for two years, they'd never had to use the threat of violence before because the men were delighted to have them. They explained that they chose strangers so it wouldn't cause gossip among their neighbors.
Even with the confession, the case posed a problem for the prosecutor--he didn't know what to charge them with. It would either have to be assault or kidnapping, and one seemed too tame while the other seemed too rough. (The problem was resolved when the girls' parents agreed to commit them to a private mental hospital until they were twenty-one.) In some states (New York for one) there would have been no problem... the girls would have been charged with "... aiding and abetting in a rape... " In other words, each would have been tried for forcing Roger to have sex with the other.
The reason that there's no provision in law for punishing women for rape is that when the laws were drafted, it was not acknowledged (or even thought) that women had a sex drive as strong (or even stronger than) a man. Furthermore, until recently, it was thought that a man couldn't have sex against his will. While a woman could be penetrated when not aroused, a man cannot enter a woman without an erect penis.
However, recent physiological studies have shown that fear can have the same effect on a man as erotic stimulation. (As long ago as the French Revolution there was written evidence of this in the works of the Marquis de Sade; but, because of his reputation as a 'pornographer' he wasn't taken seriously.) Kinsey has confirmed that fear causes nine physiological reactions that are identical to those caused by erotic stimuli.
So, if the man wasn't aroused by the sight of naked women, or by their caresses, he could be frightened into a state in which he could satisfy them.
It should be pointed out that the old story about a man winning acquittal on a rape charge because his lawyer had a member of the jury attempt to insert a pencil into a moving bottle (or thread a moving needle) is just that;--a story. There's no record of a jury acquitting a man after such a defense, if, indeed, such a defense has ever been used.
CHAPTER SIX
Polly S... had a problem common to many girls of her age and background: her boy friend (Jim W... ) wanted more sex than she was willing to provide.
Polly was 18, a senior in high school, as was Jim. Her parents were both college graduates and both worked (although her mother did so only to keep busy.) Jim and Polly had known each other for seven years and had dated, off and on, through most of them. Finally, just before their 17 birthdays, they'd decided to go steady.
Up until that time, Polly hadn't done much more than neck; and the few times she had petted, she had restricted her date to handling her breasts through her clothes. But Polly accepted the code of the area which said it was all right to pet, even pet heavily, with a guy you were going steady with. In fact, is more than all right, it was expected.
So, Polly had followed the pattern of allowing Jim more and more intimacy: First he got to caress her breasts through her clothes on every date, then he was permitted to run his hands under her clothes and handle her breasts on occasion, and, when this became common practice, he was allowed to open her clothes now and then and kiss her breasts.
As time passed, the pattern unfolded. Jim was granted new liberties on occasion, the occasions go without intercourse, because, in the 15 months hesitation about allowing him to proceed to that stage on each date. Then he was granted a new privilege for special occasions and the cycle began anew.
By the time they reached their last semester of high school, they'd gone about as far as they could go without intercourse, because, in the 15 months they had gone steady, Jim had advanced from just kissing her and touching her covered breasts once in a while, to the point where they were masturbating each other to orgasm on every date.
And Jim was becoming more persistent in his attempts to go beyond that. Polly had already let him He atop her, but she'd become scared at the last moment and it had ended with Jim's penis pressed between their stomachs as he moved in a parody of intercourse until he ejaculated.
If they'd been older, or if they'd been seriously considering marriage in the near future, Polly wouldn't have been reluctant to surrender her virginity to Jim, because that was accepted as normal between couples who were engaged, or in their last year or so of college. However, they were only in high school and they weren't thinking of getting married.
Polly wanted to go to college, for one thing. She wasn't sure whether she wanted to be a teacher or a guidance counselor, but she knew she wanted to get a degree and do more than just be a wife and mother. And she didn't know if she'd marry Jim if he asked her. She liked him a lot, had a lot of fun with him, enjoyed being with him and, as far as she could say, had a satisfactory sexual relationship with him. But, had he suggested they get married, and had their parents agreed to help them through college and had he agreed to let her take birth control pills until they got their degrees; even so, she didn't know if she'd have accepted or refused.
So, Polly had a problem. She was sure that Jim wasn't going to be content with what they were presently doing for nine months more; he was going to insist she either go all they way or call off their relationship.
If only it were summer, Polly thought. I could give in now and then, save it for the special times; by the time it looked as if the "special times" were becoming common, it'd be time to leave for college. And with Jim going one place and me somewhere else, I'd have to start all over with a new guy anyway.
But, it wasn't summer, it was barely the middle of February. And, if Polly couldn't bring herself to go all the way before too long, she could resign herself to the unpleasant status of being unattached until she found a new steady, because she just couldn't go for seven months without one and Jim would be attentive elsewhere. A steady was a necessity in her crowd, and a girl without one was at a distinct social disadvantage.
She spent a week, then two, trying to decide what course to follow; and Jim didn't make things any easier for her.
In the beginning, when she'd first let him caress her genitals, he'd been content to merely slip his fingers inside her panties, but then he'd begun raising her skirts and lowering her underpants (or pulling down her slacks and panties), but never much below her knees; now, however, with his desire to have intercourse growing ever stronger, he was undressing her completely from the waist down, and he usually tried to get his legs and hips between her legs as they caressed each other. Furthermore, he was taking longer before giving her satisfaction, holding back in his caresses until it became apparent that she wasn't going to give in to his pleas.
Polly decided that she had to do something and fast. Either let him or break up, she told herself. And then a third alternative presented itself to her; one she willingly decided she could follow without regrets.
That night there was a big dance, the Valentine dance, and since it was a weekend, Polly had permission to come in late; but, instead of going to one of the parties after the dance, Jim and Polly parked. Wordlessly they switched to the back seat and settled into each other's arms, their lips coming together hungrily and Jim's hands closing over her breasts.
In the beginning they had necked for a while before he touched her, but now they began necking and petting simultaneously. She knew why, of course, he was hoping they'd go all the way and wanted to be sure they had time.
His hands were trying to get into the tight bodice of her dress, and Polly moved away from him, opened the dress and went up on her knees. "Lift it off," she said and he did, running his hands along her legs and over her buttocks as he carried the dress up and off, then draped it over the seat before them as his eyes devoured her naked breasts (the bra was built into the dress). Jim began to stroke her breasts as Polly opened his shirt, after removing his tie. Then they kissed again and his hand moved under her half-slip and moved up and down her thigh.
Polly's hands wandered over his chest as Jim's hand rose higher on her leg, until it reached the junction of her thighs, where it slid around to knead the flesh of her buttocks. Polly twisted until she was lying across him, supported by one of his arms. His mouth skipped down to her breasts and he tried to get her half slip and panties off.
She let him struggle for a moment, them moved his hand gently, hooked her thumbs under the elastic and stripped to her stockings and garter-belt. She shifted again, as his hand toyed with her, moved until she could open his trousers and run her hands inside them to begin caressing him.
In a few minutes her hips were undulating against his probing fingers and stroking hand and Jim lifted his mouth her ear. "Come on, honey," he whispered. "It's getting harder to take just this kid's stuff."
Her head turned and she sealed his mouth with hers, giving him her tongue. Jim began trying to maneuver her onto her back, but Polly evaded him and sat up, then pushed his trousers and shorts to his knees. He misinterpreted and tried again to get her stretched out, but she stopped him. Jim gave her a perplexed look as she asked: "Will you promise not to leave me hung up, if I go past 'kid's stuff?" she asked.
Jim was bewildered, but he nodded. Polly licked her lips nervously, then slid off the seat and knelt on the floor. As her hands closed around him, she moved her head slowly forward.
When her mouth encircled him, Jim slumped forward, to bring himself closer to her. It was a new experience for both of them but Polly managed to find a procedure that was effective, if not artistic, and she soon brought him to climax.
Rising, she spat several times, then seated herself. Jim seemed lethargic, but he moved to her, sucked on her breasts and fondled her genitals until she reached her climax. Then they held each other easily, although Jim seemed reluctant to kiss her mouth to mouth.
As was reported (in Chapter Two), approximately 20 million men have performed cunnilingus. Only slightly fewer have had fellatio (oral stimulation of the male genital) performed on them. Despite this, fellatio is also a crime.
In both cases, the practice is covered by the sodomy statutes of the state, as are certain other sexual acts, including what is commonly thought of as sodomy--anal intercourse (the act that brought the destruction of Sodom by God).
When we say 'certain other sexual acts' are also covered by the sodomy statutes, we are no vaguer than the law itself. In many cases, the law does not specify exactly what activities it does make illegal, but uses language such as "... hideous crime against nature... "
"... the reprehensible act... " etc. And yet, no court has ruled such laws unconstitutional because of their vagueness. Illinois, however, has repealed its sodomy statute (at least when the persons involved are consenting adults, acting in private).
It makes no difference whether the couple involved are married (as Tom and Alice A... ) were, or unmarried (as with Polly and Jim); just as it makes no difference whose idea the act was, as long as it was performed. (And, when someone suggests such an act, they are guilty of "... soliciting for a crime against nature... " In connection with the sodomy statutes also (as with all laws dealing with sex) there is much confusion, and variations.
Besides Illinois (with no sodomy statutes), many of the courts in Mississippi and Ohio have ruled that cunnilingus is not 'the crime against nature' meant by the statues.
Laws proscribing oral-genital stimulation and other types of non-coital sexual activities are among the oldest known. And, when one considers their antiquity and the conditions at the time of their enactment, it isn't hard to understand why they came into being.
When the original laws pertaining to sodomy (and we use the term in the legal sense) were introduced, the life expectancy of a man was a little over 30 years, and the mortality rate was high; therefore, the very survival of a tribe or nation depended upon fathering as many children as possible. (It should be noted here that the Biblical figure, Onan--whose name is mistakenly used as a synonym for masturbation--was not condemned for masturbating, but for failing to impregnate his dead brother's widow. The Hebrews, beset as they were by hostile tribes, desperately needed to increase their numbers. Thus, when a man died, without heirs it was decreed that his brothers must take his place in the widow's bed and impregnate her. The children so fathered were regarded as those of the dead man. Because Onan objected to this tribal law, he caused himself to spill his seed upon the ground--scholars believe he withdrew his penis at the moment of ejaculation to do this--and it was for this deliberate defiance of the tribal requirement... the refusal to make his brother's widow pregnant... that he was condemned.) In ancient times, humans struggled to keep their beliefs, tribes and nations alive. Naturally they forbade any sexual practice which interfered with conception. It was a thing of necessity--necessary to their continued existence. Earth's population was sparse--man's enemies were legion. These numbered not only other men, but pestilence, famine, wild animals... all the inimical forces of a world not yet subjugated were arrayed against its human population. So, the increase of tribal numbers was a must and disciplines to attain the population increase were a basic and important necessity.
This is no longer true. With the growth of world population is growing the problem of how to feed it. Before long, earth will have too many people so, today, there is no need for such taboos. Just as the Ancient Hebrews proscribed certain animals for food--a therapeutic caution which has persisted as a religious tenet--today we know that thorough cooking kills the trichinae which caused sickness and death in ancient times. Beef and pork are two of our most popular foods today.
So there is no justification nor necessity for the anachronistic belief that anything which interferes with conception in sexual activity is "bad", or "wrong", or "depraved"... or any of the multitude of iniquitous labels some people, beset by anxieties, fear, guilt and distrust of themselves and others, have proliferated to identify as taboos against sex and anything connected with it. (Here is a truly monumental "cultural lag"!) That such beliefs persist in the face of oncoming overpopulation is another evidence of the contradictory nature of man's reasoning powers. The existence of such contradictions is a contributing reason to the growing distrust of many individuals and institutions still clinging to outmoded disciplines which appear thoroughly ridiculous in the eyes of an increasingly informed "younger generation".
Today, it is widely known that such acts as oral-genital stimulation (even anal intercourse) exist among lower life forms. Also, the statistical projection which indicates that half the population approves and indulges in oral-genital stimulation is a shocking piece of information to the blinker-wearing "aginers" who hysterically decry such acts as "unnatural". Breaking through the anachronistic attitudes has allowed us to learn much about sexual activity; about the physiological details of sex which have led many doctors to recommend oral-genital activity as a means of stimulation and arousal.
But, the law has refused to catch up and, in general, has resisted alteration with the result that, whether fellatio and cunnilingus are used as a means for arousal--as part of the love-play in sexual activity--or as an activity for production of orgasm--they're still illegal.' Not only are the non-coital methods discussed illegal, in two states (Wyoming and Indiana), what is known as 'heavy petting' is also illegal, if either, or both partners is under 21! The law reads: "Whoever entices, allures, instigates or aids any person under the age of twenty-one (21) to commit masturbation or self-pollution shall be deemed guilty of sodomy." (Sec. 6-98 in Wyoming, and Sec. 10-4412[2566] in Indiana.) (Because of this, if the girl is over 18, it would be better for her and her date to have intercourse. The penalty for fornication is three and six months respectively; but the penalty for sodomy is 10 years--and either a fine of between $100 and $1,000 and/or a sentence of between two and 14 years--in Indiana!) It's also interesting to note that, because of the deliberate vagueness of the wording of the sodomy statutes, it is conceivable that regular penal-vaginal intercourse could be classified as sodomy if either partner used some contraceptive device. (This is why some states will allow sale of prophylactics only if they bear the legend: "Sold For The Prevention Of Disease Only!")
CHAPTER SEVEN
In 1960, 69.1 percent of the men in this country (over 14) were married and another 5.8 percent were widowed or divorced; for women, the figures were 65.9 and 15 percent respectively. That means that there were 45,960,179 men, and 52,615,417 women (over 14) who either were, or had been, married. Furthermore, there were 1,561,394 marriages in 1960. And every year, approximately 8.5 percent of the eligible population enters into wedlock.
Americans marry young these days, by 1962, the median age for brides was 20.3 and for grooms, 22.7 (at the first marriage). Of course, it's possible to get married much earlier: In fact, with the consent of the parents' and the court, a couple could become man and wife at only 14 and 13 respectively in New Hampshire; several states permit girls to marry at 14 with only their parents' consent, and Washington state has no minimum age at which a male can marry.
All of which proves that marriage is an established institution in America. And, if the old joke that: "Anyone who married belongs in an institution," comes to your mind--don't laugh. It's quite possible that you could end up in an institution, just for getting married... and the institution could be the local jail or the state penitentiary!
To the careful reader, this will not come as a surprise; sex has much to do with marriage and, when it comes to sex--the law must have its say.
For example: in order to enter into matrimony, you first must have the permission of the state. It is at this point a number of proposed unions are nipped in the bud, so to speak.
It is true that a number of the legal requirements make a lot of sense--the proscription against marriage between persons suffering from venereal disease or that against the union of close blood relations--these are logical and reasonable bases to declare the intended lovebirds ineligible. The ban on marriages of "underage" individuals is not so universally accepted as equal to the wisdom of Solomon.
The point is debated by Allen Edwards and R.E.L. Masters--who have written such books on sexology as "Eros and Evil,"
"The Jewel In the Lotus,"
"The Homosexual Revolution," to name a few--in "The Cradle of Erotica," � 1962 by The Julian Press (page 121), stating that: "Many girls today could improve their lot by marrying at twelve or thirteen when in many cases they would be escaping, among other things, incest at home and neighborhood promiscuity."
Thus, while some of the proscriptions on who may marry whom do make sense, others do not. While not generally known, many states forbid epileptics to marry. Although it has long since been determined that epilepsy is not an inherited disease, none of the states is making any attempt to repeal the prohibition.
Far more widely-known are the anti-miscegenation laws.
When these laws are mentioned, the "average" reaction will be to call to mind two factors as almost the total makeup of the equation: First-- marriages between Caucasians and Negroes, and second--the states which make up the Solid South. This reaction is not conducive to accuracy.
(While differing sources provide a variation in the count of states with anti-miscengenation laws, this is due, in part, to (1) a lack of definition of what is meant by the word and (2) the fact that several states are discussing repeal or are in the process of repealing such statutes.) The effects of anti-miscegenation laws are not confined exclusively to Caucasian-Negroid races-- some states forbid any intermarriage of races while others are more selective in their injustice. Alabama, for example, allows a white to marry an Oriental or an American Indian... but not a Negro. In Idaho, a Caucasian may not contract marriage with an Oriental or a Negro, but may marry and American Indian. (In the past even divisions within races and nationalities have been detected in such proscription.) Additionally, in some states (Arkansas and Alabama, for example) there is no need to prove that such a marriage took place if prosecution is contemplated. If a woman gives birth to a mulatto offspring, that is sufficient to prove violation in Arkansas. If a woman and a man are seen nude together or are observed in each others arms, that is sufficient proof of violation in both Arkansas and Alabama.
As a further injustice, the marriage may have been legal in the state where it was performed, but a state with an anti-miscegenation law can still hold it invalid! This is what occurred in the case of Loving us. Commonwealth, 147 S.E.2nd 78, now being appealed in Federal court--which appeal may result, ultimately, in such laws being ruled unconstitutional. A white man, and a woman who was part Indian and part Negro (residents of Caroline County, Virginia), went into Washington, D.C.-which has no anti-miscegenation law--and were married. Five weeks after their return home to the little community of Passing, Virginia, they were arrested, found guilty of violating the Virginia anti-miscegenation law and were sentenced to a year in jail. The sentence was suspended on the condition the couple leave the state and not return to it, together, at any time.
Now, the Constitution of the United States specifies (in Article IV, Section I) that: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state." It has been established that a couple, too young to marry in their home state without their parents' consent, may go--to be wed--to another state where the law says they're old enough to be married. This is not a violation of the law of their home state. Thus, if the differing statutes--in such instances--do not create a violation upon the couple's return to their home state--the marriage being allowed to stand--why is it not possible for a couple to evade the proscription against inter-racial union in the same manner, with their marriage being allowed to stand? There may be a change in the offing, however. In 1964, the Supreme Court held a Florida statute invalid which forbade cohabitation between persons of different races. The statute set a stiffer penalty for that offense than for illegal cohabitation by persons of the same race. It does not seem an over-optimistic assumption, then, that the Supreme Tribunal will rule anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional should they come before it on appeal.
Marriage is, supposedly, an indissoluble union.
Indeed, in the ritual of the marriage ceremony, the partners pledge themselves to each other for life, no matter what the circumstances.
Unfortunately, however, nothing is permanent-- and this impermanence is spreading among married couples. In 1960, there were 375,592 divorces granted in the United States. That number was 4 percent of the total population (6 percent of the population over the age of 14). Naturally, many of these people have remarried but--is the second marriage valid?
Becky C... was only 17 when she and Richard K... were married; and Becky wasn't particularly interested in being a wife. However, she was going to be a mother, and upon her parents' insistence, Richard was complying--doing the right thing--marrying her...
Becky and Richard soon discovered that being married was a lot different than what they'd expected. The glamour and excitement of dating--and then making love in the back seat of Richard's car was replaced with the day by day recurrence of reality: the reality of Becky, her abdomen distended, her hair up in curlers and her body clad in a shabby robe; and the reality of Richard arriving home from work with grease on his clothes and body, then sitting around barefooted, drinking beer and watching T.V., or going out with his buddies, but without Becky.
After two years of this, they decided that they'd had enough. An aunt of Becky's said she could get her a job in Iowa and that she'd care for the baby while Becky worked. Becky jumped at the chance and Richard let her go, since he was as glad as she was to have the marriage end.
Shortly after arriving in Des Moines, Becky met Phil N... a widower eight years her senior, who was trying to raise a daughter by himself. Phil was immediately attracted to the full-breasted, narrow-waisted Becky, and she enjoyed his company as much as he enjoyed hers. So, as time passed, they grew closer together and the intimacy between them deepened. Phil was older and had been around more and he was a better lover than Richard had been. Furthermore, he'd been married before and had definite ideas of what marriage should be and how to keep it from getting into a rut.
So, after a year, when Richard divorced Becky in Madison, on the grounds of desertion, Becky and Phil were married in Iowa. They knew that the Wisconsin divorce prohibited either Richard or Becky from marrying in that state for a year, but Iowa didn't care and granted Becky and Phil a license as soon as Becky received her copy of the decree. She informed Richard of her new marriage and he surprised her by sending a gift.
Seven months passed and the firm that employed Phil opened a branch office in Milwaukee and assigned him there as manager. Since Becky's family lived only 40 miles away, she was glad they were moving.
Her happiness soon disappeared, however. Richard's mother had never liked her and had resented her taking the baby to Iowa. And so, on the third day after Becky and Phil had moved to Wisconsin, Becky's ex-mother-in-law swore out a war-rent, charging them with adultery...
And, they were guilty! Because the Wisconsin court, which granted the divorce of Richard and Becky, had not made the divorce final at any earlier date, the year waiting period was still in effect, and Becky's marriage to Phil was not recognized as legal in Wisconsin. Therefore, since she was still not completely divorced from Richard, she was committing adultery, and, since Wisconsin's adultery statute holds both parties guilty of adultery (if either is married to a third party), Phil was guilty too. (In some states, only the married person is guilty of adultery, the unmarried partner being guilty of fornication. But, some states would have recognized the validity of Becky's Iowa marriage in which case, if the divorce had not become final, she would have been guilty of bigamy.) In theory, two people get married because they are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. And, while it is hoped that they will attain this goal, there is always the chance that, for some reason, the couple will decide that they have made a mistake and wish to dissolve the marriage.
Unfortunately, it's not as easy as that; although easier in some states than in others. Because, while the law recognizes that marriage is: "... a status founded on contract and established by law... ", it goes beyond normal rules involving contracts and sets special laws regarding dissolution the marriage contract.
There are 45 different reasons why a couple can be granted a divorce, with adultery being the only cause recognized in each of the states.
New York, at present recognizes only adultery; however, the legislature is considering a new divorce bill that would permit other reasons. Until that bill becomes law though, cases such as the following will occur in New York: Mark and Carol F... are both 28 and have been married six years. During the first year or so, the love they had felt during the nine months they had dated before marrying was still as alive and strong as they could wish. Gradually, then, it diminished, until their marriage was no longer a thing of passion, but rather of habit. They drifted away from each other, each involved in a job and the friendships that resulted from work associations, each pursuing solitary interests and no longer caring that there was no remaining togetherness. Even sex became a habit, something they did on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays and neither of them could remember exactly when they had had sex as the result of a strong mutual desire.
At first they were content with things the way they were, they were in a rut but it didn't seem worth any effort to get out. But, as the years went on, both of them grew increasingly aware that there were a lot of things they were missing, things they could never have together. Divorce was the only answer.
Neither Mark nor Carol had any moral objections to divorce and, when the subject came up, they were in agreement that the marriage was dead and all that remained was its internment. There was only one problem--neither of them could afford to establish residence elsewhere and get the divorce. And, while they had both had brief affairs, they weren't involved with anyone at the moment and wouldn't have drawn anyone else into their problem had they been.
A lawyer provided the answer for them. And so, a week after he and Carol had talked to the new attorney, Mark entered a mid-town Manhattan hotel and took the elevator to the fourth floor. He knocked and was admitted to a room by a tall woman, attired in a simple dress. In the background, he saw her shoes beside a chair and her stockings over it. Her blonde hair was loose and to her shoulders. "You're late," she told him, "I thought you might've changed your mind."
"Couldn't get a guy off the phone," he explained as he slipped off his jacket and loosened his tie. "How much time do we have?"
The woman looked at her watch. "Not too much," she said. As she spoke, she turned. "Unzip me, please?" Mark did as she asked, then hurried to get out of his shirt, shoes and trousers. In just his shorts and socks, he moved to the bed, joining the woman, who was now wearing only utilitarian briefs and a plain bra, which she was unsnapping.
"We'd better smear the lipstick," she said, offering her mouth to him. A moment later, when they broke apart, her unblotted lipstick had been smeared unevenly around her mouth, and was amply transferred to Mark's face too.
Once more she looked at her watch. "Just a few seconds, now," she said, stretching out on the bed and sliding one of her bra straps down until the cup exposed her breast almost to the nipple. She pressed her mouth to Mark's chest, then wrapped her. arms around him as he embraced her and touched his mouth to the exposed portion of her breast.
Just then the door opened and several people entered--two private detectives, the house detective, and Carol. Flashbulbs went off and the woman leaped from the bed and huddled in a corner, her back to the room. "Thank you," called One of the private detectives, as he and his partner escorted Carol from the room. The house detective remained until Mark and the blonde dressed and left.
As he reached the sidewalk, Mark said goodbye to the blonde and crossed the street to a bar, where Carol was waiting in a booth in the rear. As he slid in across from her, he saw she was grinning. "What's so funny?" he asked.
"You didn't pay any attention when you dressed this morning," she told him. "Your shorts are decorated with Cupids!"
Hardly the way you would expect a man and wife to act a few minutes after the husband had been caught in bed with another woman, is it? Even when the marriage was as dead as Mark and Carol's?
But, Mark hadn't been caught in another woman's arms.
Carol had known that Mark was going to meet the woman, even before he'd left the house that morning, for she'd been with him when the arrangements were made. The blonde in the hotel with Mark had been a stranger to him, someone hired by the detective agency to pose with him so the incriminating photos could be taken that would allow Carol to get a divorce.
The woman was a 'professional co-respondent' and made her living by posing for pictures with a man in Mark's situation. (If it had been necessary to have Mark bring suit; it would've been just as easy to hire a man to pose with Carol). The woman involved in the photos won't appear in court, won't even be identified... the posed photos are sufficient to prove Mark's adultery...
As a noted lawyer, judge and professor of law once said: "The fewer grounds for divorce, the greater the incentive to commit perjury."
Even with adultery the only grounds for divorce in New York, the state granted 7,235 divorces in 1960 (making it 17th from the top in rank. Nevada, supposedly the country's divorce capital, granted 8,455 divorces that year. Not surprisingly, the states with the most divorces were: California (49,276), Texas (34,732), Ohio (22,960), Illinois (21,809) and Florida (19,544)... the state granting the fewest divorces was Vermont (463).
Nevada rates as the divorce capital only because it had the shortest waiting period to establish residence--six weeks. Wyoming is next, with a 60 day waiting period, and will grant a divorce for any one of 14 reasons. Several states require only 90 days, including Arkansas, which grants a divorce for any one of 17 reasons. Besides Adultery, they are: Cruelty, Desertion--one year, Alcoholism, Impotency, Neglect to Provide, Felony Conviction, Insanity, Bigamy, Separation--three years, Indignities, Drug Addiction, Violence, Fraudulent Contract, Relationship within a prohibited degree, Absence of three years, Insanity at the time of marriage.
Some of the other grounds for divorce (in various states) are Public defamation, Husband a vagrant, Wife a prostitute, Crime against nature (sodomy, or even requesting such an act), Habitual intemperance, Ungovernable temper, and an attempt by one party on the life of the other. Oh, yes, if your spouse joins a cult that doesn't believe in marriage, that's grounds for divorce in New Hampshire.
But, the single biggest reason for divorce is grounds for divorce in only one state. Psychiatrists, social workers, sexologists, lawyers, ministers, all agree that the single most frequent cause of divorce is the inability of the partners to have a satisfactory sex life together... in other words, they're incompatible. Yet, Oklahoma is the only state which allows for divorce on this ground.
And so, because of the hypocrisy of our legislators, because divorce is considered sinful, people such as Mark and Carol F... must fake adultery and commit perjury in order to correct a mistake; and thousands of other people must find some idiosyncrasy in their mate which they can claim is upsetting to them, so they may obtain a divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
CHAPTER EIGHT
It was a beautiful moonlit night, the first really warm night of the spring, and they walked along the golf course, away from the party in the clubhouse, primarily intent on clearing their heads after too many Stingers and Black Velvets. By the third green there was a huge pine shadowing a wooden bench, and they sat, discussing, as people do when they're a little intoxicated, the meaning of life.
Denise shook her head. "I don't think there is any meaning, Brad. Everything seems so pointless, so empty, nothing will matter a hundred years from now anyway, so what's the use?" She shivered a little and leaned forward to cup her face in her hands. As her shoulders began to shake, she cried: "Nobody even cares about me."
Brad placed his hands on her shoulders and lifted her head. "That's not true," he said. "I care about you."
Even in a semi-intoxicated state, Denise was able to be coquettish. "Do you, Brad?" she asked, leaning forward to look deep into his eyes. "I'd never know it."
Brad took the cue and drew her closer, until their lips were only a fraction of an inch apart. "You should know it, Denny," he answered. "But, if you don't, I'll prove it."
He kissed her, found her mouth opened to his tongue. But he fooled her; instead of filling her mouth, Brad let his tongue slide over her full lips, back and forth, until Denise sobbed and pressed herself to him, twisting her mouth hungrily against his as she did so. The kiss lasted a long time, and when they pulled apart, one of his hands was closed over the fullness of her breast. Their breathing was heavier than normal and they looked at each other for a moment, before kissing again. "Where?" she asked, when the second kiss ended.
Brad continued to work his hand into her dress. "I don't suppose it would be smart to go back to the parking lot and use a car," he admitted as he looked around. "Under the tree?"
Denise nodded slowly and sighed as he removed his hand. They rose to their feet and scurried to the thick blanket of needles beneath the overhanging branches, where Brad tossed his jacket down for them to sit on.
Once again his hand delved into her bosom, but, as he did so, this time, she moved her hands from his shoulders and opened the dress so he could lower the bodice and leave only a fragile half-bra as covering for her upper body. His mouth left hers and moved over her face as his hands entered the bra and lifted her heavy breasts from it. As his hands closed around them, allowing the thick nipples to protrude between his ringers, Denise shivered with anticipation and began to unbutton his shirt.
They kissed deeply again as Brad caressed her resilient breasts to a state of fullness. Then his mouth trailed wet kisses down to seize on a turgid nipple while his hands slid down to her knees; there they slipped under her skirt and voyaged upward, caressing the backs of her thighs as they moved to the curve of her buttocks. With a strength that was surprising, Denise pushed Brad over to a reclining position and rested atop him. As he kneaded her buttocks from within her panties, she stroked and caressed his chest, then let her lips move over it, biting lightly from time to time. Slowly they reversed their position and Brad's lips were back on her breasts. His hands circled her hips, withdrew from her panties and began to caress her inner thighs. Denise whimpered softly in his ear.
Suddenly she grabbed his hands and moved them away. Brad was about to accuse her of being a tease, when she drew her panties from her hips. When they were to her knees, she withdrew one leg from them and threw her feet as far apart as she could. Again she glued her mouth to his, thrusting her tongue forward and back in a steady rhythm. One of his hands moved deliberately to cover her genitals, to stroke and caress her until she was tossing her hips about spasmodically, scissoring her legs and drawing his tongue into her mouth, where she held it captive. Her hands seemed frantic as they opened his trousers, then shoved them and his shorts down to his knees. "Hurry, lover," she moaned, wrenching her mouth free from his.
Brad rolled above her, then rose to his knees to look at her. The sight of her lying there, her shoulders raised by half-extended arms, her thighs spread far apart, the dark dress gathered about her slim waist, the bra loose just below her breasts and the legs encased in gartered stockings, all had an erotic effect on him. Denise watched him through slitted eyes as he inspected her. "Please," she whimpered, grabbing his erect penis and trying to pull him upon her.
He went willingly, maneuvering her arms until she was flat on her back. Her hands guided him urgently to her and, as he pushed, she threw her legs around his waist and strained in an effort to absorb even more of his rampant manhood within her shaking body. His arms crossed her back, his right hand on her left buttock and vice versa, and his weight was flattening her breasts against his chest as they moved hungrily.
Their climaxes came soon after they'd started, but Denise held him tight and continued to move, indicating she wanted a repeat performance. Brad was happy to oblige her, and thrust slowly, as he kissed her breasts, until she gurgled with fulfillment again. After their second orgasm had come and the afterglow was dying, they pulled away from each other and dressed rapidly, not looking at each other. Brad brushed off the back of his jacket, then lit two cigarettes and handed one to Denise. "Thank you," she said in a quiet voice. "Thank you very much." As they walked back to the club house, Brad wondered just what she had thanked him so profusely for.
A familiar enough story: A romantic night, a party, one or two drinks too many, a feeling of love and a hurried meeting of heated bodies in a secluded place. But, if Brad and Denise were in love with anyone, it was certainly not each other but their respective wife and husband. Brad and Denise are adulterers.
And, of course (unless they're in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, New Mexico or Tennessee), they're sex criminals!
However, they probably won't be charged with a crime. As pointed out in the last chapter, adultery is the only grounds for divorce currently recognized in New York; but, despite the fact that, in New York City alone, there were 1,700 divorces granted during the period of July 1959 to June 1960, there wasn't a single arrest for adultery in that time. (A few cities did report arrests for adultery; but the law against it is generally a 'dead-letter' law, on the books but ignored.) The penalty for adultery is generally the same as, or a little stiffer than, that for fornication between partners who aren't married to anyone; although in Alaska the reverse is true. (This is supposedly true because the fornication law in Alaska has elements of being an anti-cohabitation statute too... the technical difference being that a single act of intercourse between partners who aren't married to each other is fornication, while cohabitation requires that the partners live together as man and wife, although they aren't married.) It is also interesting to note that, of all the states, Hawaii is the only one with a different penalty for men and woman when it comes to adultery--and the stiffer penalty is reserved for the man, contrary to the generally held idea that it is the woman who commits the more serious offense by indulging in an adulterous relationship. (For example Italy will sentence a woman to two years to prison for adultery, but has no law making adultery by a man a crime. And, in Texas, a man can sue his wife's lover for damages--and collect, but there is no provision for a woman suing her husband's mistress.) The reason for this insistence that a wife commits a greater offense in having an adulterous affair than her husband does, is simple and goes back to the basic reason (other than the Seventh Commandment--unless it is the basis for the commandment) why adultery was made a crime. The theory is that, if a wife indulges in an adulterous relationship, there is a chance that she will become pregnant by her lover, with the illegitimate child (and any child conceived by two persons who are not married to each other is illegitimate) would be accepted as the husband's, thus cheating the rightful heirs out of a share of their inheritance upon his death. (Since the law does not recognize the rights of illegitimate children to inherit from their father, any child conceived as the result of a man's adulterous affair would be no threat to his legal heirs, unless a specific provision was made for them in a will. And, even then, it is possible that a court would set aside such a provision if the will was challenged.) Despite the fact that a fine of as much as $1,000 or a sentence of up to five years, or both, could be given, Kinsey estimates that over 50 percent of the married men in this country will have at least one extramarital affair, and that 26 percent of the married women will. (Those are the figures provided by those who admitted they had such affairs. However, Kinsey and his associates feel that a large number of people refused to acknowledge such activity, and other researchers tend to support this: For example Terman, in his 1938 study, reported that 72 percent of the interviewers expressed an interest in extramarital affairs.) The studies of such men as Kinsey, Terman, Morse, etc., reveal that there are two distinct patterns regarding extra-marital affairs for men: If the man has had only a high school (or less) education, his adultery will likely occur in his youth, with the number of such affairs decreasing as he grows older; for the man with a college education, the exact opposite pattern is prevalent.
Research has also shown that, for women, there are three periods in her life when she is most apt to have an affair.
The first of these occurs during the early years of marriage, before the birth of children, if the wife isn't working, but is merely a housewife with a lot of free time on her hands she has a husband she sees little of, one who is developing different interests as his career progresses, who travels in a world she's no longer part of. When a woman turns to another man under these circumstances she is often motivated by boredom; the same motivation which usually applies at the second period when a woman is most likely to have an affair, which is when her children are in school full time and she is once again faced with days that are largely empty.
The third period when a woman is likely to indulge in an extra-marital affair is when she is approaching menopause. Here the motivation switches; she may still be bored, but she will give as the chief reason for having an affair at this time the desire to reaffirm her worth as a person. After all, she's no longer able to have children, the children she has had are grown (or almost so) and no longer need her, she and her husband have grown so used to each other that they take each other for granted... and she turns to another man in an attempt to prove to herself that she still has something to offer, that she still has some validity and value as a woman.
Although adultery statutes are based on religious grounds, it is theologians and churchmen who are calling for a new viewpoint on adultery, rather than legislators. Grouped collectively (and loosely) under the term Christian Existentialists, these men advocate the adoption of what they call a situational ethic, in which the circumstances under which an act was performed would have more influence in whether it was 'sinful' or not, than the rules and laws of the church.
These men argue, persuasively, that laws are opened to interpretation, and that man, because of his lack of knowledge or her caprices, often gives a law a different interpretation than was intended. (As an example, see Chapter four, with regards to the Mann Act.) The basic ingredient of the Christian faith, these men say, as well as the touchstone of the relationship between God and man, can be described in one word--LOVE. And, when we consider the actions of another, one must let this love be the prevailing factor, one must let it override the canons of the church.
There are conditions, it is argued by these Christian Existentialists, when a person is justified in committing adultery. The following case illustrated just one of the conditions.
Dan and Tammy J... have been married for five years, and are still very much in love, despite a seven year difference in their ages. However, Dan has spent the last three months with his hips in a cast (as the result of an automobile accident) and it will be at least that long before the cast is removed. Tammy is a highly passionate woman (despite, or perhaps, because of, a sheltered adolescence) and she and Dan had made love four or five nights a week before the accident, with Tammy often undergoing multiple orgasms. Since the accident, however, he has been unable to do more than masturbate her or perform cunnilingus ( as she squatted above him) and, while Tammy enjoys these acts, they aren't fully satisfactory to her. Dan is well aware of this, just as he is aware that Tammy, at 29, is an exceptionally attractive and well sexed woman.
A lawyer, Dan is able to work at home, conferring with his partners over the phone and dictating reports into a recording machine. One of the clerks visits the house teach morning to deliver new material and pick up the tapes. In addition, his partners visit him at times.
Dan suggested to Tammy that, on one of these occasions, she let the man know she's available. Since it's common knowledge in the office how the two of them feel about each other he's sure the offer will be taken as merely an attempt to appease the hungers of the flesh. Furthermore, because she's good looking and sexually desirable, he's sure that the offer will be accepted. "If you want, or feel you need to," he said, "say that I have urged you to have an affair while I'm incapable of sex. I don't care who it is, don't want to know; so it might be best if whoever it is came back after I've taken my pills and gone to sleep for the night. You could use the guest room."
Tammy smiled and leaned over to kiss him. "Other than marrying me, darling, that's the most positive proof of your love for me that I've received," she whispered.
If Tammy accepts Dan's offer, and does have an affair with someone from his office, the chances are that it will be brief and won't be repeated. Statistics show that the average person who indulged in extra-marital sex does so only once and that the average affair lasts only six months or less. (They also show that, when a person does have more than one affair, the affairs are apt to be spaced several months apart, and to be of shorter duration.) In other words, the man who is perpetually taking another woman to bed, or the woman who sleeps with her secret lover for years, is a distinctly uncommon adulterer. There are such people, but they are in the minority.
There is one other statistic that's worth mentioning: When Kinsey did his famous studies, he found that 40 percent of the woman who admitted having extra-marital affairs claimed that their husbands knew of the affair, and another 9 percent said they thought their husbands suspected.
CHAPTER NINE
When one looks at the figures given in the last paragraph of the preceding chapter, one immediately wonders: Why did the men involved let their wives get away with it? (This, of course, presupposes that the women involved were allowed to get away with it; but [actually] there is no evidence that they were, no figures to show whether any of them were sued for divorce because of their adultery, or whether their husbands took any other action.) One answer may be that the men didn't care-- because they felt that, if their wives could commit adultery, they could too.
There are no figures as to how prevalent an attitude this is, but there is evidence that a substantial minority follow a new concept of 'adultery'-one which recognizes that love and sexual desire are two completely different things, which may or may not be focused on the same person; and which says that love, not sex, is the more important. Adultery then, becomes less an act and more an existential state; a man and woman who marry have pledged themselves to love, honor and cherish, and, as long as they remain in love with each other, neither of them is an adulterer, no matter how many people they sleep with! On the other hand, if one of them falls in love with another person, this is adultery, since it cheats the husband or wife out of the love they have been promised. (It doesn't matter if the third person knows of this love or not, much less whether there is sexual activity between the lover and the beloved; it is love, not sexual fidelity, that had been pledged.) We can find a philosophical basis for such an idea in the approved promiscuity (free love) thesis advanced during the 1920s, as well as in the theories of love developed as far back as ancient Greece. The holders of this new theory of adultery have conceded that one does not have to be in love with someone to want (or have) sex with them, they admit that erotic hunger is just that and see no reason why it should not be appeased. And so, couples who share this new concept of adultery become adulterers by mutual consent. They have their affairs without having to worry about their mates finding them out, because the mate not only knows about the affair, but is having their own. (Many of these people even allow the spouse to share in the experience vicariously by giving them full details of the assignation, and some go so far as to allow the spouse to watch!) Because of this 'sharing' of their extra-marital affairs, a husband and wife will know quite a bit about their mate's other sex partner. Indeed, it often goes further than that; a man's wife and his mistress may be good friends, or a woman's husband and lover may get along well together. It's almost like the old joke, where a Frenchman, on seeing two women approaching, exclaims to his companion: "Good heavens, here comes my wife and mistress." And his friend, in surprise, says: "I was about to say the same thing." The difference is, that with people who indulge in adultery by mutual consent, the element of surprise is unusual.
The P... s--Bill and Julie--waited while their host, Harry H... opened his front door and let his wife--Ann--enter first. It was a Friday night and the H... s had treated the younger couple to an evening on the town. Now, as the four of them sat in the living room, Bill was wondering how he was going to repay them, after all, Harry was the manager of the office where he worked, Harry's salary was twice his, and Harry arid Ann weren't just setting up housekeeping, as he and Julie were. Maybe he told himself, Harry and Ann understand that Julie and I can't afford an evening like this. (They'd started with supper at one of the more expensive restaurants in town, seen a foreign film, then finished by visiting several jazz clubs... Bill estimated that Harry must have spent sixty or seventy dollars.) The other three were discussing the movie, a French one that had dealt with the affairs of a bored pair of expatriates. As the discussion went on, Bill noticed that Ann, who had been silent most of the evening, was becoming more animated.
"Tell me, dear," Ann asked, leaning toward Julie in a confidential manner, "is Bill a good lover?" (The leading woman in the film had used this as the only criteria for judging men.) Julie blushed at the question. "I... 1 don't know," she answered. "I mean, I enjoy that part of our marriage; but I don't know how to rate Bill. It's... well, I don't have anyone to compare him to."
(This was no surprise to Bill, he'd dated Julie since they began junior high school.) But, the reaction did seem to surprise Harry and Ann, who exchanged looks. "But, haven't you even thought of someone else?" Ann inquired.
"What about you, Bill?" Harry asked. "Is Julie the only girl in your life?"
"I can answer that," Julie said. "There was another woman, but she doesn't really count, she was a prostitute and Bill just did it to be one of the boys. And, yes, I have thought about sex with someone else, wondered what it would be like." Bill snapped his head around to look at her, and she went on hastily: "Just... well, it was just idle speculation, the way you'd wonder what it would be like to drive a real fast car or something. I never thought of anybody specific. And I'd never cheat on Bill. I couldn't sneak around behind his back and have sex with someone else."
"What if you wanted sex with someone else?" Harry asked, as he handed around fresh drinks.
"I'd force myself to ignore it," Julie said. "If I couldn't and I knew the man wanted me, I'd ask for a divorce."
"How Victorian," Ann chuckled. "Really!"
"I don't think I'd give her a divorce," Bill said. "If she asked me, I'd tell her to have an affair for a while, then to decide if she wanted a divorce. If it was just an infatuation, a case of animal magnetism, she'd get it out of her system. And we might be better for it."
"What if Bill had sex with some other woman." Harry asked Julie. "If you knew about it, would you want a divorce? Or would you go out and have an affair yourself?"
"I'm not sure," she answered, after thinking a minute. "I may be Victorian, but I'm not so Victorian that I feel Bill can operate under one code while I have to operate under another; I don't accept the double standard. But, I don't know what I'd do. I'd probably be disappointed in him."
"Why on earth would you be disappointed?" Ann asked.
"Well, why should he have sex with someone else?" Julie retorted. "Oh, if we were separated for a long time, I could understand it, but, as things are, there's no reason... I'm willing to have sex anytime he wants. Ask him. I've never refused him, and I won't."
"But, don't you get in a rut?" Ann countered. "Think a minute. Isn't there a predictable pattern to sex between you? Don't you think some variety is nice? After all, Harry and I enjoy an evening like tonight, but we don't spend all of our evenings that way. I like sea food, but I don't want it all the time."
"As to why a man would want another woman, when he had a loving, willing wife," Harry said, "well, Ann has never refused me and I enjoy sex with her, but, I think people tend to take each other for granted after a while, they forget what they have in each other, unless they're reminded."
"Do you mean you've cheated on Ann?" Bill asked.
Harry shook his head. "No. I never 'cheated' on her. It's true I've had sex with other women, but Ann has always known about it; just as I've always known when she's had sex with another man. And, I think I can speak for both of us, when I say our marriage is stronger because we've had other partners. Like Ann says, we get in ruts, a pattern develops. By having a new partner, we keep our habits from getting too set, there're new factors introduced, you're forced to keep alert, to interpret nuances and so on."
Ann interrupted him. "And, even though I enjoy sex with other men, I always feel glad when I go to Harry again. I know he's a good lover, and having sex with other men keeps reminding me of that. I seem to appreciate him more immediately after spending the night with another man."
"That makes sense," Bill admitted. "It's like Julie said about fast cars--I drove a Jaguar once and I enjoyed it, but I was glad to get back to my Comet because I knew what it was capable of and I'm satisfied with it. But I'm also glad I drove the Jag, not only because it was fun but because it reminded me of what I had in the Comet."
Julie broke her silence as she moved to the bar and built a new drink. "If you mean that, Bill," she said, "you wouldn't mind if I went to bed with another man, as long as you knew I was doing it?"
Her husband crossed the room to her. "You know how I feel about you, honey," he said, as he slipped his arms around her. "If you really wanted something, I wouldn't stop you from getting it." His lips touched her neck. "But, would you mind if I took another woman to bed?"
"Would you come back to me?" she asked. And, when he nodded, she said. "Then I guess not." She looked at him intently. "Do you have someone in mind?" Bill shook his head. "And I don't either," she said. "I'll probably never go to bed with another man. If I did, I'd want it to be someone I thought I'd enjoy, someone who's a good lover; but I don't know anyone."
There was a moment of silence in the room, then Ann spoke. "You know Harry, darling."
Both Bill and Julie looked up, startled. They had assumed the conversation to be one of those pseudo-serious ones that seem to come naturally to the fairly intelligent and educated people after a few drinks, and they had thought that they were dealing with an abstract concept. Now, however, they saw that Harry and Ann were serious, that they were asking their guests to put their beliefs on the line and practice what they had preached. "And you with Bill, I suppose?" Julie asked. "We just hop into bed with strangers?"
"Not strangers," Harry protested. "But, it does seem a little cold-blooded, doesn't it. It did to me my first time. So, let's add an element of chance, let's play a game of strip-poker, with the first man and women to undress to go together, that way the odds are even on us getting our normal partners."
Bill and Julie looked at each other, sensing that the other wasn't sure what to do and that neither of them wanted to make the first move. As they stared, Harry opened a card table and Ann got a deck of cards and Bill and Julie knew the play had been taken from them. They moved to the table and sat at right angles to each other as Harry shuffled the cards...
"I can't get over this," Julie said. "It's like something out of a bad novel." She looked at the four hands and sighed. "I don't think I'll ever win," She complained, rising to her feet. She'd already lost her shoes, stockings and dress, now she pulled her slip over her head and sat down again, feeling a little embarrassed to be in just bra and panty-girdle while everyone else had on twice as much.
Her luck changed then and the game got back on an even footing. "This is a little unusual," Ann admitted, "normally, if it's just us and another couple they know in advance what's going to happen." The last card was dealt and Harry was low man. He pulled off his undershirt to reveal a flat stomach and broad chest and Julie had to remind herself that he was 40.
"You've done this before?" Bill asked.
"Oh, yes," Harry asked as he lost again. "At least once a week. And we often go to parties where everybody swaps."
"We'll take you to the next one," Ann said, as Julie dealt.
"Let them get used to the idea," Harry said as Julie lost. "May I help?" he asked her, reaching behind her to unhook her bra. As he took it off his hands brushed her full breasts and she blushed at her extended nipples.
The cards came around the table and Julie watched with mixed feelings as she got unmatched cards while Bill and Ann got pairs. On one hand, she was intrigued with the idea of going to bed with Harry, if only to see how Bill compared; on the other hand, she didn't know if she liked the idea of Bill and Ann being together in bed--what if he decided she was lacking? Three more rounds of cards followed and she was clearly the loser.
Harry grinned as she rose from her chair. "May I?" he asked again, as he dropped to his knees before her and reached for her waist. As she saw Ann strip and settle herself in Bill's lap, Julie nodded and even made herself caress Harry's balding head when he kissed her tummy as he worked the panty-girdle off of her ample hips.
Bill rose and carried Ann out of the room and Julie, when Harry rose, let him lead her to the other bedroom. As she walked she forced herself not to think of Bill and Ann, but to think only of herself and Harry, of what he was going to do to her and ask her to do to him.
* * *
Harry and Ann H... have gone one step beyond adultery by mutual consent and are practitioners of organized adultery.
Called by many names, with 'wife-swappers' the most prevalent, the practitioners of this type of adultery seem to be engaged in a fairly recent practice. In no other era, in no other land, do we find both polyandry (having two or more husbands at the same time) and polygamy (having two or more wives at the same time) practiced together-- although, strictly speaking, among 'wife-swappers' there is only one husband to a woman and one wife to a man. About the closest parallel found is the Perfectionist colony at Oneida, New York, where the members practiced what they called a 'complex marriage' in which "... any man and woman may and do freely cohabit, having first gained each other's consent... " (The difference between this and 'wife-swapping' is technical. The Perfectionists didn't practice marriage between individuals--in fact they condemned it as idolatry--but considered every woman to be every man's wife, and vice versa. The 'swappers', however, practice conventional marriage but feel free to have sex outside the marriage--at their mutual discretion and with mutual participation and consent.
* * *
Until very recently, there was very little information of a statistical nature on the prevalence of 'wife-swapping', despite the many books and articles written on the practice. Although no clinical study (on a par with the Kinsey--or later--studies) has been made on the subject, one recent book gives an estimate which sets the number of participants in 'wife-swapping' over the eight million mark! This book "The Sex Rebels" by Matt and Kathleen Gallant, proprietors of "Club Rebel" (characterized by the press as "a national clearinghouse for sex") does offer some statistical material. The book itself, deals with the experiences of the husband-and-wife proprietors of the club and covers the "Club Rebel" history from inception to the police raids which made the Gallants determine to abandon the club. Chapter Ten, with charts, maps and graphs delineates the extent of the club's operations; breaks down the membership by the level of income, by occupations and religion, and... perhaps the most arresting statistic of them all... shows that the national divorce rate is almost double that prevailing among 'swingers'--also known as 'wife-swappers'! "The Sex Rebels", PEC, San Diego, California, 1966, $1.25. Further exploration is available in articles by Sir Magazine; these books: "The Velvet Underground," Michael Leigh, MacFadden-Bartell, New York, 1963, 60 cents; "Sexual Rebellion in the Sixties," W. D. Sprague, Lancer books, New York, 1965, 60 cents; and "The Sexual Revolution," Benjamin Morse, Monarch Books, Darby, Connecticut, 1962, 50 cents.
* * *
As with all other sexual activity, the laws pertaining to 'wife-swapping' vary from state to state. So far, there have been nine court cases involving 'swappers' because of their 'swapping'; in Sacramento, California, thirty-one people were arrested for alleged participation but never stood trial on charges, the case being thrown out. On the surface, it would seem that 'swapping', as such, is legal in those states having no adultery statutes.
In addition, because sexual intercourse (in any form) if performed by consenting adults in private is legal in Illinois, there is some doubt as to the validity of that state's adultery (and fornication) statutes. Should these be upheld in the courts, these laws would take the position that homosexuals and other, so-called, perverts have rights which do not apply to heterosexuals. (Caution--just because this is hardly logical does not mean that the courts won't rule that way.) However, if the 'swappers' didn't retire to separate rooms, but just to different parts of the same room, or if one couple performed a sexual act while others watched, charges of disorderly conduct, or participating in a lewd and obscene performance could conceivably be filled.
One more thing should be mentioned here, in regard to adultery. The courts have constantly held that, when the 'injured' mate forgives the 'errant' one, there are no grounds for divorce. (And it has been held that intercourse, after the adultery is known, constitutes forgiveness.) It is interesting to ponder whether the court would hold that when one party gives consent to the adultery of the other, if this constitutes forgiveness?
CHAPTER TEN
The sodomy laws apply to everyone, but there is one group whose sexual activities are more restricted by them than the activities of others. The people referred to are the homosexuals, who must use the methods proscribed, unless they resort to masturbation (or, if lesbians, to the use of a dildo [an artificial penis]) in order to achieve orgasm. Even then, many sodomy statues specifically outlaw all sexual activities between members of the same sex.
The average person is going to say--So what? Who cares about them?
Well, who cares about the man who wants to perform cunnilingus on his wife? Or the woman who wants to perform fellatio? Who cares about the teen-age couple who're very much in love but (for some reason) can't get married? Who cares about you?
You don't have to be a homosexual to be able to see they're not getting a fair deal.
There were Gentiles in Hitler's Germany who fought for the Jews, there are Caucasians who fight for the Negro. They know that, unless the rights of the minorities are established and protected, the rights of the majority aren't really safe, and can be eroded and, eventually, destroyed.
Not even the most militant homosexual will claim that they are anything other than a minority, but there is disagreement as to how large a minority group they are. Kinsey says, for example, that 4 percent of the male population is totally homosexual, but that 37 percent of the males have had a homosexual experience that resulted in orgasm. On the other hand, Jess Stearns entitled his book about male homosexuality The Sixth Man, due to the contention of some that every sixth man in this country is a homosexual. (One in six is 16 2/3 percent.) On the distaff side, Kinsey says 20 percent of our Women have had some type of homosexual experience, and 13 percent to orgasm.
This double figure is indicative of the problem involved in determining the number of homosexuals. Simply stated, the problem is: How much homosexual activity makes a homosexual? (Many of the men who comprised the 37 percent figure Kinsey gave probably had only one such experience-are they homosexuals?) If we go deeper into Kinsey's findings, we discover that, in any given three year period, only 25 percent of the men had more than incidental homosexual experience, only 18 percent had as much homosexual experience as they did heterosexual experience, only 10 percent were predominantly homosexual and only 8 percent were exclusively homosexual. And we are still faced with the question: How much homosexual activity is needed for one to have 'predominantly homosexual experience'? What is 'incidental homosexual experience'? What is 'incidental homosexual experience'? Is the determining factor one of quantity, the number of partners, the number of orgasms... what?
Perhaps we should leave the determination of numbers to statisticians and merely note that, according to them (as well as to sociologists and psychiatrists), the number of people who will indulge in both homo- and hetero- sexual activity is increasing, particularly among the young. (It has been pointed out by many reporters that people who practice 'wife-swapping' often progress from this to other, more exotic forms of sexual expression. The attitude of these people might be expressed, thus--Why should I rule out sex with 50 percent of the world, just because they're the same gender as I am?)
* * *
With homosexuality, as with most forms of sexual activity, the law is more lenient with woman than men.
For example, only one state (Michigan) has a law specifically outlawing lesbianism (Sec.28.570(l).) On the other hand, there are six states that permit it (by statute); in addition to Illinois (which permits both male and female homosexual acts between consenting adults in private), these states are: Georgia, South Carolina, Connecticut, Kentucky and Wisconsin. Furthermore, since cunnilingus has been held not to violate the sodomy statutes in Ohio and Mississippi, lesbianism is probably legal in these states. And, finally, the vagueness of the sodomy statutes in Arkansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Colorado leaves doubt as to whether they outlaw lesbianism.
Not only is the lesbian given more freedom in more states than is her male counterpart, in those states where all homosexuality is illegal, she still gets away with more. A check of the police blotter in any major city will show arrests of males for homosexual acts, or for suggesting homosexual acts (remember, the average sodomy statute makes it a crime to offer to perform an illegal act or to request that it be performed); but they rarely show arrests of women for homosexuality.
Because the police can't watch every bedroom, most of the arrests for homosexual activities come as the result of something else. For example neighbors may complain about a noisy party. Normally the police would just issue a warning, but, if they saw it was a gathering of homosexuals, they might make an arrest on a disorderly conduct charge. Then, when checking to see if everyone was out of the house they might discover a couple having sex and arrest them under the sodomy statutes. Or, while checking cars in a deserted area or in lover's lane, the police might merely send home the couples indulging in heterosexual activity (unless the girl looked underage), but they would arrest any homosexuals they discovered.
And, because of the nature of the sodomy statutes, the majority of arrests for homosexual activity comes from an attempt by a homosexual to arrange a tryst with another person. Not only the police receive reports of these attempts often they stay in the background until a homosexual act is performed before making an arrest, thereby getting two arrests to their credit) but the police themselves will often try to lure the homosexual into an attempt to pick up an officer so they can make an arrest for 'soliciting for a crime against nature'. For example, the following case:
* * *
It was about 10:30 and a main street in a fairly large town and so Sam L... shouldn't have attracted the attention of the two plainclothes policemen who drove past him in an unmarked car. He wasn't doing anything, merely standing in front of a restaurant, perhaps waiting for someone, perhaps trying to decide whether to go to the last showing at one of the nearby theatres or home to watch television, he could even have been waiting for a cab or a bus.
Inside the car, Joe I... , a veteran police officer, turned to Henry V... recently promoted from Patrolman to Detective-Junior grade. "Swing around the block," Joe said.
"Got something?"
"Don't know," Joe admitted, "but that guy on the comer, I think he might be 'cruising'," ('Cruising' is homosexual slang and means to go from place to place, usually in a search of a companion for the evening: the verb is also used in reference to attempts to secure a definite person as a partner, or to describe the mannerisms a homosexual uses to advise others of his inclinations.) "You want to stop?" Henry asked.
"Naw," Joe said. "If he is, he'll have an explanation, and he doesn't look like a 'vag'. If we can do anything, we'll have to get him to make a pass." Quickly he outlined the plan. Then, when they were out of Sam's sight, Henry left the car and Joe drove to a spot where he could watch. In a few minutes Henry approached, walking toward Sam in a way that would lead him back to the car if he was unsuccessful. As he passed the other man, Henry paused and took a cigarette from his pocket. "Got a match?" he asked.
Sam produced a lighter. Henry, after using it, returned it and then, as an afterthought, offered Sam a cigarette. As he took one from the pack, Henry noticed his ring. "That's nice," he commented. As he'd hoped, Sam allowed him to examine it closer, which gave him the opportunity to squeeze Sam's hand for a moment. "Not much to do in this town, is there?" Henry asked, releasing the hand.
"Oh," Sam answered, "it's all right."
"For someone who lives here, maybe," Henry replied, "but, for a guy like me who doesn't know anyone it's pretty lonely. I mean, just in town for a little while, it's hard to find people that are compatible, if you know what I mean."
"I'm sure you could find some one if you hunted," Sam said.
"Probably," Henry admitted. "But, that still means being lonely for a while." When Sam said nothing, Henry went on: "I don't know if you've ever felt it, but hotel rooms are so lonely, so cold and impersonal; you get so you'd do just about anything merely to know that someone was really aware of you. That's why I envy guys that stay in one place, they can have friends and things, they can be close to someone. There's times when even 'trade' looks good." ('Trade' is homosexual slang for prostitutes, usually male, who will submit to homosexual intercourse.) It was the use of this catch word that dispelled some of Sam's normal caution with strangers. "Well," he said, "I do know the town pretty well, maybe I could suggest a place or two where you could find the type of people you're looking for."
"One would do--one person," Henry said. "I'm not much for crowds; but I would like to find someone that was... well, sympathetic. You know, someone that wouldn't mind my needs."
Sam looked at him for a moment. "Just anybody?" he asked. Henry nodded. "That's a pretty large classification," Sam said.
Henry shrugged. "I know, but I'm not too particular. I'll do anything to avoid loneliness."
"What does 'anything' include?" Sam asked.
Again Henry shrugged. "I'd have to hear an offer to decide whether it was included or not. I wouldn't kill anybody, but, short of that... " he let his voice trail off.
Sam licked his lips nervously. "And you don't care who it's with? The person's sex doesn't matter?"
"Oh," Henry said, "I suppose I could go with a woman."
Sam looked around and stepped closer. "Do you do 69?" he asked. ('69' is a mutual, simultaneous, oral-genital intercourse.) Henry nodded. "Would you like to?" Sam asked. "With me?"
A smile played across Henry's face. "Are you asking me if I'll let you?" It was Sam's turn to nod. Henry withdrew a leather folder and flipped it opened. "Vice squad," he said. "You're under arrest."
CHAPTER ELEVEN
There is only one area of sexual activity where the woman is likely to receive sterner treatment from the law than the man--and that is prostitution. And there, the law is stacked against the woman both in phrasing and in enforcement.
For example, in 16 states, a woman doesn't need to take money in order to be adjudged a prostitute, all she has to do is lead a promiscuous life, base her sexual relationships on a temporary desire for a casual acquaintance--in other words, have the same attitude towards sex that a man has.
Furthermore, although a woman cannot commit an act of prostitution by herself, it does not follow that the man who has intercourse with a prostitute has committed a crime.
While all states except Nevada have laws against prostitution, many of them don't make it a crime to patronize a prostitute. (And, some of the states which make it a crime to go to a house of ill fame for the purpose of prostitution, have said that this law applies only to women.) And, in those states which do hold that the customer is equally guilty, the police often ignore the provision, or side-step it by offering the man immunity if he'll testify that the woman solicited him and that he gave her money for allowing him to have intercourse with her. (The fact that the man could be married, and thereby committing adultery, is something that apparently escapes the thinking of the police.) This legalistic double standard on the part of the police has led two California women to seek a reversal of their convictions for prostitution on the grounds that, since California does hold the man to be guilty (in fact, California holds the man to be more guilty, and provides a more severe penalty for him) when the police failed to bring charges against the men, they were violating the women's rights to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Additional proof of the leniency shown men when it comes to dealing with commercialized sex is found in the FBI's annual report of arrests in major cities, under the title Prostitution and organized vice. In a typical year (1962), there were 20,425 women arrested under this category, but only 6,460 men--a ratio of 3.16 to 1.
* * *
Like everything else, prostitution is changing. It used to be that prostitutes worked in houses, but these days the old fashioned 'whore house' has all but disappeared. It has been replaced by three types of prostitutes--the street-walker, the bar-girl and the call-girl.
But, there are two other types of prostitutes engaged in the business these days, although they operate on a restricted basis and are not paid by the customer.
The first of these new prostitutes, who's been described by reporters and such sociologists as C. Wright Mills, could be called the Corporation Call-Girl.
These women are, as their name suggests, retained by a large company to entertain people with whom the company does, or wants to do, business. They do not have to go to bed with these people but they're supposed to if it is necessary.
Often these girls hold down a legitimate job, or they are students, aspiring artists of some type, or housewives, and they engaged in prostitution on a part-time basis to supplement their income; they may get a pittance every week to be available, or they may be put on the payroll but do no work (other than in the bedroom), or they may be clerical workers who have no objection to earning a large sum for providing a man company for the evening.
It is impossible to estimate how many women work as Corporation Call Girls, because many of them do it only for a short time; but, very few of them are ever arrested. This is because they not only don't take money from the man with whom they copulate, but their evening looks enough like a 'date' in the usual sense of the word to make it impossible to ascertain whether they're working or not.
Closely allied with the Corporation Call Girl, but less carefully studied, is another type of girl who indulges in what could be described as 'subsidized sex', but who doesn't charge her partner for her favors. The following case illustrates this point: Alice P... was only 15 but there was a knowledgeability about her which belied her age: much of it expressed in the way she dressed and comported herself. Even if he hadn't been aware of her reputation, Mac C... felt he could have identified her character by type.
Mac was the resident engineer on a highway construction project, an exuberant man of 30 who'd been around the world in his work. He was driving around the small town, where his new headquarters were, when he saw Alice standing on a corner. On � impulse he stopped and asked her if she wanted to ride around for a while, maybe get a hamburger and shake at one of the drive-ins outside of town. Alice had promptly hopped into the car and slid across the seat to snuggle against him, letting her hand trail against the back of his neck. Her skirt had pulled up her thighs as she'd entered the car and she made no move to pull it down. Nor did she mind when he patted her knee at a stop light.
They drove around town several times, circling the small business section, before Mac headed out to a drive-in, where Alice gulped down three hamburgers and two shakes, while he undressed her with his eyes.
She didn't have a spectacular figure by any means, but it seemed to be adequate, as far as he could tell; the breasts under the sloppy sweater seemed to be full, her hips were, perhaps, a trifle oversized and her waist a little thick, but she had good legs and was tall enough to carry the extra weight.
She knew he was watching her, undressing her mentally, but she didn't seem to mind. Of course, from the stories he had heard about her, he'd have been surprised if she had minded.
"Where to now?" he asked, as he flicked his lights for the carhop to remove the window tray.
"Do you stay at Tillman's like the rest of them?" Alice asked, referring to the boarding house where the majority of the out-of-state crew members were lodging.
"Nope," Mac answered, "I've got a trailer out behind Doyle's Service Station."
"Then let's go there," Alice suggested. "I've never been in a trailer, but there's bound to be more room than in this car." (Mac drove a Falcon.) He looked at her, decided that she was serious, and started the car. Five minutes later he was leading her into the trailer and even before he had the door shut she had her arms around him and was kissing him expertly. Mac gave the door a shove, disregarded the taste of onions on her breath as he kissed her back, while his hands went around her and fitted over her solid buttocks, to pull her closer.
When they finally broke apart, he switched on a light, settled himself in an easy chair and pulled her down to his lap. She came easily, swiveling her hips about until she was comfortable. Both of her hands were on the back of his head as she kissed him and Mac tangled one of his hands in her short (and dirty) blonde hair while the other slid to her breast. All Alice did was shift to allow him to caress her easily.
There was a curious resilience in her breasts and, after a minute, Alice broke the kiss to say: "You don't mind that I wear falsies, do you?" As she spoke she pulled the sweater over her head, then reached behind her to open her bra.
Her breasts were small and set wide apart, but they were firm, nicely shaped and the nipples were already erect. Mac closed his hands over them and squeezed lightly. "There's a handful there," he said, "and anything else is surplus." As he fingered her nipples, she leaned closer to him, put her mouth to his and thrust her tongue between his lips.
After a few minutes, when he slipped one hand under her skirt, she pushed away again. "Do you want to stay here for a while?" she asked. "Or shall we go to bed?"
Mac didn't have to think twice about the answer. He slid her to her feet and rose to his, kicking off his shoes as he did so. Alice unhooked and unzipped her skirt, let it fall and pushed off her panties, then walked naked to the next room. As Mac undressed, he watched the jiggle of her full buttocks.
When he entered the bedroom, she was stretched out with her legs apart, her shoulders against the wall-and the pillows jammed under her wide hips. He opened the drawer of his dresser and removed a condom, but, before he could open the foil, Alice spoke: "Don't bother; it's okay. Besides, I don't like them."
"I don't want to take any chances," Mac told her, looking dubiously at the package in his hand.
"You won't be," she replied, reaching out and grabbing his erect masculinity. "I won't say anything about you and me doing it if anything happens."
"I don't know," Mac said, still hesitant.
"If you're gonna insist on using it, we might as well get dressed," Alice said. "I won't do it if you use that thing."
Mac looked at her naked body, her hips rolling suggestively on the pillows, and then tossed the condom back into the drawer, in an instant he was on the bed beside her.
Their lips met and his hands slid over her body, moving from her breasts to her genitals and back again. Only a minute passed before she pushed his head down to her breasts and, as he mouthed them, he felt her reach between his legs and begin to caress him expertly.
He figured that she was ready and started to roll over her but she pushed him away and continued until he was on his back.
Then one of her legs swung over him and she was suddenly lying atop him. Her hips lifted and she reached back to connect them as Mac lifted his knees so she could lean against them while she maneuvered herself to a sitting position.
As she rose and fell rhythmically over him, he reached up and handled her breasts, then dropped his hands to stroke her thighs harshly. Under her breath she began to mutter something.
Her movements grew faster and her voice became louder and he was aware that she was cursing heatedly--he'd been around and he couldn't curse like she did.
When her climax came she arched forward, breaking their union, thrusting her pelvis forward and her shoulders back. She screamed and fell upon him, her mouth meeting his with almost brutal force.
In a moment she rolled over onto her back and drew her legs up until her ankles were resting on her shoulders. "Do it again," she pleaded.
Mac rolled over her and thrust deeply into her as she locked her feet around his neck. His hands squirmed under her buttocks and he curved his body and lifted her from the bed as he pounded away at her. In his ear she began the string of profanity again.
The thing that makes the above case different from any other description of sex between a man and a casual pickup is not the speed with which Mac and Alice arrived in bed, nor the positions in which they had sex. It isn't even Alice's use of profanity during the act (this is not uncommon). It is, rather, her refusal to permit intercourse if a contraceptive was used.
Unlike most girls, Alice P... doesn't care if she gets pregnant. In fact, she hopes she does!
The fact that her baby would be illegitimate and grow up fatherless (for Alice has no intention of marrying at this time) makes no difference to her, because illegitimacy is a way of life to Alice P...
An illegitimate child herself (as are her three sisters), Alice P... at 15, has already given birth to two such babies and doesn't care how many more she has. Not that Alice has any great love for children--she even considers hers to be nuisances-but she has a great deal of love for money. And the State Welfare Department will provide her with more money each month for every child she has.
Alice P... is engaging in commercialized sex, with the bill being paid by you--the taxpayer!
Women like Alice P... her mother and her two older sisters are not prostitutes in the accepted sense of the word, and would be insulted if referred to s such. True, they will accept a 'loan' now and then (which they never repay) but they don't ask for money, and, if they don't like a man, they won't have intercourse with him.
Alice doesn't consider herself to be doing anything wrong; and neither does the state. To the Welfare Case Workers, she is "unfortunate" and "culturally deprived", more to be pitied than censured--one of the people for whom the War On Poverty is being fought.
It is common knowledge that illegitimate births are increasing at an alarming rate. For example, Ruth and Edward Brecker, writing in The New York Times Magazine for May 29, 1966 (copyright, 1966 by The New York Times.) have said: "If present rates continue, one 13-year-old girl in every six in Connecticut will become pregnant out of wedlock before her 20th birthday." [Emphasis added.] (And Connecticut is just 25th in population among the states.) To point out further the rise in the number of illegitimate births, these statistics: In 1940 there were 8.4 such births per thousand girls below 20, by 1961 the figure was 16 per thousand--almost a 100% increase. And, in 1940 there were 16 such births per thousand among girls aged 20 to 25, in 1961 there were 41,2 per thousand--an increase of 257%%! (This is higher than the total birth rate increase.) f Not all girls who have illegitimate children are like Alice P... by any means. Some of them get married and their husband supports the child, others have abortions, or have the child and put it out for adoption, still others support the child themselves, or it's raised by their parents.
But, the number of girls like Alice P... is rising, and will probably continue to rise; for investigation has shown that when there's a pattern of illegitimacy in the family, it usually continues. In other words, with these people, illegitimacy becomes a way of life. Because Alice was illegitimate, and because her children are, the odds are that her daughters will have illegitimate children--perhaps even at Alice's urging. And these votes count the same as any other in the ballot box...
* * *
The surprising thing in connection with girls such as Alice P... is that the state does little, or nothing, to curb their activities.
In some states, such girls could be charged with prostitution, but such charges are seldom filed; just as the girls are seldom charged with 'being an unfit mother'--the state apparently feels that a poor mother is better than none and, therefore, is hesitant to instigate action that would lead to a jail sentence.
(There is a provision, in many states, that allows for the forced sterilization under a number of conditions--when the woman has been found to be mentally defective, to have epilepsy, to be of 'poor moral character' or to engage in "continual association with those of 'poor moral character'"--but this penalty is rarely invoked. And, in the most recent instance in which it was invoked, it was challenged on the grounds that sterilization constituted 'cruel and unusual punishment', which is unconstitutional. [See Time Magazine, July 3, 1966.]
CHAPTER TWELVE
In preceding chapters, we outlined many of those circumstances which could lead to involvement in legal difficulties through engaging in sexual activities. In this portion, there is the same goal, but with this difference: here the danger may be incurred by the actions of one person, alone... not with a partner.
This description of sexual activity may seem humorous to many readers. It is widely believed that it takes two to tango--or do much of anything else. You may even be under the impression that it's impossible to commit a sex crime, solo--with no fellow participant. If so, this situation is offered as a challenge--but not in the hope you'll accept it: Undress in such a location that you might fall under the view of a prudish old-maid--even though unaware that she could actually be watching, or could see you. Then, try to offer a defense against a charge of indecent exposure which she could bring against you!
Indecent exposure is the charge normally placed against exhibitionists (those who attain sexual gratification by exposing their bodies or performing an act of sex under the view of others) and it is but one of the sex crimes you can commit, all by yourself.
For instance, consider this:
* * *
Toni B... aged 22-1/2, works as a waitress to support her part-time study at a university. She is employed in a small San Francisco night spot.
One evening when she arrived at work, she was told the boss wanted to see her. Because of a trend that was developing, she was told she would have to wear a different costume if she wanted to keep her job. The costume turned out to be one of the (then) new 'topless' bathing suits.
The hesitation that Toni felt when she first saw the suit was not because it would leave her breasts uncovered--she was proud of her body and felt no shame in displaying it--but because she was unsure of the reaction of the customers to the sight of her 39" breasts, without covering.
The club owner must have understood her concern, because he smiled and said: "Don't worry. I got an extra bouncer and anybody that tries to get out of hand gets hustled, fast."
Toni knew that a job as good as this would be hard to get, so she agreed, accepted the suit and went to the dressing room. The bottom was skimpy, cut high at the legs so that almost all of her hip showed, and the suit was slashed across the top of her pelvis at such a low angle that her pubic hair was almost exposed. In addition, the strap that looped around her neck was little more than a shoestring. But, by the time her shift was over, Toni was used to working in the costume and she was even getting used to the remarks made about her naked breasts, or the stares that they drew.
Several nights later, the bar where Toni worked was one of 43 raided by the police (with the 'topless' waitresses and entertainers being charged under Sec. 650% of the California Penal Code--a catchall section used to control 'outrages of public decency'.) However, when the first case came to court, the judge--Leo Friedman--ruled (in connection with the waitresses at The Off-Broadway) that: "Bare bosoms, in and of themselves, are neither lewd, lascivious or obscene." (Since then, Section 650% has been ruled unconstitutional because of its vagueness by the Second District Court of Appeals, following a reversal of the conviction of Jeanne and Harlan Davis under the law because Jeanne appeared in just the bottom half of a Bikini in the restaurant she and Harlan owned in Los Angeles.) Because of the ruling by Judge Friedman and the public indignation against the arrests, the charges against Toni and the other girls were dismissed.
(In a related case, this one involving Carol Doda, the girl with the silicone-filled 49" breasts, who dances in a topless suit at The Condor, it was held that freedom of conduct and expression are protected under the First Amendment.
(In a similar case, a judge in Oklahoma has held that, while such modern dances as the Frug, Watusi and Jerk may be suggestive, a girl who does them while dressed in a skimpy outfit is not performing a lewd act.
(And, also from Oklahoma, comes a ruling that a woman who wears a Bikini while working in her yard in a residential area does not 'outrage public decency'.) This is one area where the courts have been quick to resist attempts to extend the limits of control over the actions of people through the laws pertaining to sexual conduct.
But, if some courts are adopting a more liberal view of what a person may wear (or not wear, depending on your view-point); there are other areas of an individual's life which are falling under tighter control (or over which tighter control is being attempted). One such area is described below: Harry and Ann H... (the 'wife-swappers' described in Chapter Nine), like many others who actively participate in organized adultery, are voluminous correspondents, writing both to people they've 'swapped' with in the past, or to people they might 'swap' with in the future.
A few days after initiating Bill and Julie P... into the practice of 'swapping', Harry wrote the following letter to Joe S... (the man who introduced Harry and Ann to 'swapping').
---
Dear Joe:
Too bad you and Marge are no longer in town; Ann and I just brought out a couple of kids I'm sure you'd like. ['Brought out' is derived from homosexual slang and means to introduce someone to a certain type of sexual activity--Author's Note.] They're in their mid-20s and he works in the office, has just been transferred here from the Mid-west.
We took them to dinner, then saw , which led to a discussion of-adultery (in the classic sense). And, after we got them to admit that they'd be willing to try sex with someone else (Julie had known no one but Bill and he'd had only one other woman); we made the proposition.
They were a little hesitant, so we started with strip-poker, with the agreement that the first man and woman to become naked would be partners-- so they had a chance to end up together. Luckily, however, Julie and I were the first losers.
As I said, she's in her mid-20s--23 or 24, probably--and she's got the body of a teen-ager; breasts that aren't as big as Ann's but which don't have any trace of sag and which stand out without support (and which have the daintiest nipples I've ever seen), a slim waist and trim buttocks, long legs, that're nicely shaped; and enough modesty to blush when she was stripping. (Bill is a tall, slim guy; but built like a horse!) Julie'd said earlier that she enjoyed sex with Bill, but, it appears his chief assets are his endowment and his stamina--he does know, Ann reports, that he should get a woman aroused first, but doesn't have much knowledge of the technique of doing so-and Julie didn't know anything but the elementary position.
Well, after a lot of foreplay, during which I learned that her primary erogenous zones include her upper arms and the backs of her knees; I got her up on her hands and knees, and showed her just how much better it could be when a little imagination was used.
She's a natural, for someone who'd never been had that way before, she knew how to move in the most stimulating ways. (Not that I needed much more stimulation than the sight of her!) And eager? She couldn't get enough once we'd started; for the first time in my life it wasn't just my ability, but my desire, was exhausted. And Julie would've kept going if I'd been able to. And to think that Ann and I hadn't expected too much from them; we'd figured that, if we got them to agree, it would be once, twice at the most, before they went home.) You can imagine our surprise when, during breakfast, they suggested that we keep things going. (At that point, Ann wanted to call in some others, but I figured it would be better to wait until they were fully used to sharing. ['Wife-sharing' is one of the terms used by 'swappers' to describe their activities--Author's Note.] Anyway, we went back to the separate bedrooms and, when I'd worked Julie up pretty good, I introduced her to frenching [i.e., oral-genital sex-- Author's Note.] She was a little hesitant to start with my doing it to her, but didn't mind going down on me at all; in fact, it was twenty minutes or so before I could get her to stop and she popped my cork for me twice without halting for a minute either time.
Along about 11:30, she decided it would be fun to watch Bill and Ann go at each other, so we moved over to their room, arriving just in time to see Ann introduce him to sex with her on top.
Julie and I kept each other ready with our hands while we watched, then put on a duplication of the effort for them to watch. At least, it started out that way, but, before too long, Bill and Julie were necking and Ann hooked up with him and I.
Don't know how Bill's going to feel now that he's had a day to think the matter over; but I'm pretty sure that Julie would like, at least, a repeat session with me... we didn't talk to them--except in passing--about sharing among a larger group.
I'll keep you informed of our progress to convert them and hope that, by the time you get here for your vacation, we'll be able to have them over to meet you.
Best--
Harry...
---
Despite the innocuousness of the letter, it is possible that Harry will be charged with sending obscene material through the mail (in violation of Title 18, Section 1461, U.S. Code--the 'Comstock Statute' named after the notorious Puritan and book burner); even though First-Class Mail is supposed to be inviolate.
There is no doubt that a book written in the terms and tempo of Harry's letter would be held to be non-obscene by any court in the country (and thus allowed to go through the mail), but the Postal Officials seem to pay little heed to the rulings of the courts--just as they pay little heed to the laws.
One of the characteristics of Postal Department offensiveness in this regard is the predilection of postal officials to notify the employers of persons they cause to be arrested on allegations of sending obscene material through the mails. The invariable result is guilt by accusation, hardly worthy conduct by officials of a so-called 'democratic' government! It smacks more of OGPU or MKVD methods.
Further, it is not uncommon for Postal Inspectors to ask people to write obscene material! This they do by placing ads in tabloid newspapers where 'wife-swappers' and others with advanced or exotic attitudes toward sex establish contact with others so inclined. Upon the receipt of a response to the "come on" (postal official's) ad, the respondent ii encouraged by a reply which is purposely suggestive and is, often, accompanied by "obscene" photographs (seized in other cases). In fact, the Postal Authorities do not hesitate to violate the law, to induce violations! Rightfully, such infractions by government employees should be prosecuted with full vigor and the guilty, as convicted felons, barred from jobs on the public payroll.
The use of photographs is particularly worthy of note, since potential 'swappers' often send photos of themselves. Usually, these are taken with an instant developer camera, requiring no commercial processing for the film. (However, there are firms which will develop and print nude photographs, including those exposing or emphasizing, the genitals.) The Post Office opinion is that such photographs are obscene and has brought charges against citizens who have trusted such pictorial data to the mails... or who've had such pictures mailed to them.
To illustrate the cynicism with which the Post Office Department regards the constitutional rights of citizens using its services, consider the case of a Nashville, Tennessee married couple. Taking nude photos of each other, the couple forwarded them to an out-of-state firm for processing. When the prints came back, the couple was hauled into court on a postal inspection complaint and convicted of sending obscene matter through the mails. The case went to the Supreme Court of the United States where the couple's legal representatives found that the Solicitor General had, quietly, asked the High Tribunal to reverse the conviction! The exceedingly lame reason advanced by the government for this unbelievable action was that dropping the action would be "in the interests of justice!"
(It seems only logical to wonder--if a government official made an error which involved persecution of private citizens and caused the government a great deal of expense--why he was not tried for a violation of the law, dismissed for incompetence or publicly reprimanded? The answer, of course, must be that such actions are countenanced and encouraged by the government--probably a primary reason for the population's increasingly cynical attitude toward the law.) However, the Supreme Court did reverse the conviction. Justices Black, Douglas and Stewart added the opinions that they would reverse the conviction not to spare the feelings of the Justice Department but because the action violated the constitutional rights of the defendants. (Redmonds vs Post Office, No. 1056, 86 Supreme Court 1415 [1966].
In the event you may feel any sense of relief at the High Court's action in this defense of the individual's rights under the constitution, be not misled. The Supreme Court's ruling decreed that the law does not apply to private recipients, unless they are receiving "aggravated" obscenity, continually. Since the word "obscenity" is itself impossible of legal definition, the Supreme Court here acts to make law--a violation of its function under the constitution!
Thus, the High Court's action clarifies nothing-- solves nothing. In recent years, SCOTUS has generated more obfuscation than light in the area of sex activities and attitudes. With an undeniable popular wave of revolt against Puritan mores surging across the country, there has been a resultant reaction of desperation from the "bluenoses", with a consequent increase in litigation.
One Supreme Court justice has stated that some forms of expression may have "a use inconsistent with any claim to the shelter of the First Amendment." This, again, is making law--and the Constitution specifically states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States... " It is interesting--and somewhat disturbing-- here to conjecture whether such an act is a violation of a justice's oath of office. In this connection, while the President swears or affirms that he will "... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution... " the oath for any Federal judge seems pallid by comparison. It commits him to do his duty .. according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States." It is disturbing to note that a judge responsible for interpreting the law's constitutionality is not required to give a more specific pledge--at least as strong as that required to give a more specific pledge--at least as strong as that required of the President. It would be some small comfort if Justices of the Supreme Court swore to uphold, protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. Their personal commitment to the solemn task should be detailed, specific, undeviating.
For a more detailed report of the activities of the Postal Inspectors, PLAYBOY MAGAZINE offers some interesting cases in its issues of December 1965, January and April, 1966, dealing with private correspondence.
* * *
There is one more matter that should be brought up here, although it is not, strictly speaking, a crime without a partner, but a crime that occurs as the aftermath of another act.
Let us assume that Alice P... (discussed in Chapter Eleven) lives in Delaware (with the age of consent set at seven and no fornication statute) and that she becomes pregnant by Mac. As we said, nothing can be done to Alice for becoming pregnant, but, Mac can be sent to jail for impregnating her! The charge is bastardly.
This is a crime, like adultery, that is rarely brought to court. Normally, if the girl knows who the father of her child is, she'll try to get him to marry her or to contribute to its support. And, if he refuses to do so, she can sue him and have the court force him to pay. (Since the state is primarily interested, in such cases, in finding someone else to support the child, the statute is usually ignored, long as the man pays, and it's used mainly as a lever to get him to pay--or to marry the girl. He'll be given the choice of doing one or the other or being charged with the crime.) In bastardly cases, or their civil counterpart, paternity suits, we find an amazing example of the law being biased in favor of the woman, because her word is taken even in the face of scientific evidence!
Blood tests will not prove who is the father of a baby; but can prove that it is impossible for an accused man to be the father. However, only two states require that blood tests be accepted. (They are New York and Maine.) In the other states, the judge does not have to admit such evidence, and the jury does not have to accept it if it is introduced. (In a famous case, Charlie Chaplin was ordered to support a child that could not have been his, despite the evidence of such tests.} What is even more appalling is that, if the man does pay for the child's support, he still has no rights concerning the child, and may not even see it if the mother doesn't want him to. Furthermore, if she wishes to place the child for adoption, the father is not consulted.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
In the previous chapters, we have demonstrated just how easily the average person could run afoul of the laws that deal with the regulation of sexual conduct, and we have shown that the estimate that 95% of us are sex criminals is true.
There are several points that should be considered then, in connection with the sex laws.
1. Is any law which a majority (or even a substantial minority) of the people violate regularly a good law? And, does such a law make any sense?
2. What are the effects of having such laws on the books, with spasmodic and indiscriminate moves to enforce them?
3. Do these laws serve any purpose now? And is the purpose the same as that the law was originally intended to serve?
If we considered these pointes honestly, the answers to the questions posed would be a surprise to many people.
For example: let's consider point No. 1--Is any law which a majority (or even a sizeable minority) of the people violates a good law? And, does such a law make any sense?
The answer here, in regard to the first question, must be a resounding NO. You have only to look at the records of the so-called 'Great Experiment', the attempt to impose nationwide prohibition through the 18th Amendment, to see that.
Not only was the law ignored by the great majority of people, not only was it unenforceable, but the results were completely disastrous.
What were the results? To begin with, a large number of persons died from drinking poisonous alcohol. More important, it is generally held that prohibition, more than any other factor, gave rise to the syndicate of organized crime which has taken a stranglehold on the country and which seems able to resist all efforts aimed at its dispersal no matter whether they are at the state or Federal level.
Congress and the states both recognized the error of attempting to control the drinking habits of the nation, and repealed the 18th Amendment. Then, when the people were given their choice in the matter, when they were allowed to decide whether to permit the sale of liquor in their state, or not; the majority of them said Yes. (At present, only one state--Mississippi--refuses to allow some type of legal sale of alcoholic beverages.) The question of whether a law that is largely ignored makes sense or not is harder to answer; but one would suspect that the answer is No.
Some experts have said that, when a law is foolish or unjust (as was the 18th Amendment), the result is a disrespect for all laws. It appears that the average person thinks of the law as the sum total of its component parts and that, if he feels that the laws he knows of are unjust or foolish, he tends to regard the entire body of law with contempt.
In addition, any law which is continually violated can hardly be a good law, if for no other reason than the effect it has. Which leads us to ask: What is the effect of having such laws on the book, with spasmodic and indiscriminate moves to enforce them?
For one thing, when people know that they can get away with breaking one law, they begin to assume that they can break more than one law, with impunity.
And, in this day and age, with crime growing at an alarming rate--not only organized crime, but crime by the average citizen; when the majority of bank robberies are committed by amateurs, when there is a continually increasing loss by business and industry through employee pilfering, when more and more people ignore traffic tickets and parking tickets, when law enforcement officials are considered by many to be their enemies--it's time we stopped and asked just what can we do to re-establish a sense of respect for the law.
One answer (admittedly a simplified one) is that we can, and should, remove (or redraft) those sections of the law that make the body of the law appear ridiculous, since it's almost impossible to respect something that looks silly.
Of course, the objection to this is that, while a law may appear to be silly, as long as it serves a purpose, we should retain it.
We will consider this shortly; at this point there are a couple of other matters that should be considered in connection with the effects of bad laws.
It is a matter of public record that our venereal disease rate is increasing at an astonishing speed; and, while there are no accurate statistics to show the percentage by source of such infections, it's generally agreed that a good many cases of V.D. can be traced back to contact with a prostitute.
The immediate reaction is to say that the police should crack down on prostitution. But, any honest police officer (particularly in a large city) will acknowledge that this is easier to say than do. For one thing, considerable prostitution is controlled by organized crime. If the girls are arrested, they are bailed out and forfeit bail rather than appear in court; in addition, they are moved around the country, so that a woman could infect several people with V.D. and be in another state before the cases were reported.
The question then is: What could be done as an alternative? We will answer this in the next chapter.
The final point to be considered in connection with the effects of bad laws, deals with homosexuality.
In many towns it is a matter of policy to forbid homosexuals to gather in public, which means that they must go underground, form a club with some other purpose as the stated reason for incorporation. However, other towns will permit homosexuals to frequent certain bars, on the theory that it's easier to control them if they're where they can be watched easily. Unfortunately, a good many bar owners don't want homosexual customers--even if they have no objections to homosexuals as such, they don't want to risk a raid on their premises-- therefore, the bars where homosexuals are made to feel at home are often run by organized crime, the only element that doesn't boggle at a pay-off, where acceptable, to avoid raids. Organized crime knows that homosexuals are good customers, not only do they drink a lot, but they can't complain about prices, not if they wish to continue the privilege of drinking in public... they pay what they're charged (even if it is higher than the prices in other bars) because they have to, there's nowhere else they can go.
In effect then, the police are actually providing customers for the bars run by organized crime! If homosexuals were allowed to gather freely, if bars weren't subject to raids because they permitted homosexuals to frequent them, the homosexuals could ignore the bars run by organized crime. Now they have to patronize such bars or drinks under cover.
* * *
We now turn to the third point for consideration and ask: Do these laws serve any purpose now? And is it the same purpose the law was intended to serve?
In most cases, the answer has to be No to both questions.
When we consider that a majority of husbands were enacted to protect 'innocent' maidens from 'seducers', it seems hard to justify them today, when many junior high school students know as much (if not more) about sex than the average wife and mother did at the turn of the century...
When we consider that a majority of husbands and wives have either performed acts of oral-genital intercourse or expressed a desire to do so, it seems hard to justify the sodomy statutes; particularly when we consider that they were originally enacted to insure a high birth rate and we are now faced with the fact that a continued high birth rate is suicidal.
When we consider that the reason given in asking for a divorce, in the majority of cases, has no real relationship to the reason for wanting a divorce, it is hard to justify our stringent divorce laws...
We could go on and on, but it should be apparent that our present statutes regulating sexual conduct serve as much purpose today as, say a law requiring a watering trough in the middle of a town park for the benefit of animals grazing there. (Maryland has such a law, dating back to colonial days.) And, if the laws pertaining to sexual conduct today are unrealistic, what will they be tomorrow?
* * *
While the projection of statistics to predict trends is a speculative business at best, and while there are several areas of sexual conduct where sufficient statistical data are not available; we can make a fairly educated guess at what the future holds.
For one thing, with puberty arriving at an increasingly early age, and with the educational period of the average young person increasing in length (From 1909/10 to 1959/60, students in grades 1 to 12, increased 250%--but students increased 950%. Both latter increases were far in excess of the number increase of the age groups involved.) It seems highly probable that the number of girls who are virgins at marriage will decrease-- the estimate now is only one in seven enjoy this state at wedlock.
Considering, also, the increasing permissiveness with regard to pre-marital sexual intercourse, it is likely that the number of virgin brides will fall to an even smaller proportion at the marriage altar.
This is logical. When it is common practice for girls of 11 or 12 to wear bras, hose and makeup, and to be going on dates; when girls of 13 or 14 are going steady--it would be foolhardy to bet that sex exploration and sexual intimacy won't begin at increasingly lower ages.
Also, the broadening permissiveness, noted above, will have further effects on sexual activity in future generations.
Formerly, women were not expected (nor thought to) enjoy sex and, if they did, their enjoyment was, of necessity hidden in secrecy--otherwise they would suffer adversely in their mates' opinion of their femininity.
Today, however, with increasing elimination of the artificial, the prosthetic proscriptions imposed to keep women in their subservient place in our society--women are something else again, as the current slang has it. No more is she denied the right to own property, to vote, to be financially responsible and self-sustaining. Nor is she forced by public opinion to swathe herself in smothering layers of clothing, prohibited from drinking or smoking in public, if she chooses to do so.
Today, women realize that not only is it realistic to desire a satisfactory sex-life--it is considered natural, healthful--and her right to have one. If it is not available one way--there are always other ways. Meaning an ever-expanding activity in the areas of extra-marital intercourse, oral-genital intercourse, and intercourse in a wide variety of positions and attitudes.
Further, many experts have opined that, to an increasing number of people, their sex lives are their only opportunities to be individuals!
As society becomes increasingly regulated, as government and business provide increasing comfort and security--and the chance and hazard of existence decline, more people will accede to this opinion and turn to sex in an effort to establish an inner identity.
This is one reason given for the wide participation in 'wife-swapping'--with an estimated 10% of the married population active in it, it is conceded to be a phenomenon which is undergoing a phenomenal rate of expansion. (To return, briefly, to Sacramento--a city of 225,000--a group of 'swappers' was discovered not long ago which involved 64 families of the community. Group members reported that theirs was not the only group in the Sacramento area and was, by no means, the largest!) The idea of sex as the last frontier for bolstering the personality is, in no sense, confined to marrieds who are 'wife-swappers', a comparable phenomena, 'date-trading' has become increasingly prevalent among the young unmarrieds--particularly among those still in school (even high school!).
While there are a few, scattered reports of organized 'sex-clubs' before World War II, they were nowhere near so numerous as the many such clubs which exist today.
Furthermore, before 1945, such clubs were usually found at the extreme ends of the social scale, i.e., in the slums or among the very rich; today they are found in all socio-economic stratums and the members are often leaders in school affairs--the 'A' students, athletes, student government members... in other words, our future 'best' citizens.
Accompanying this 'date-trading' or 'wife-swapping' seems to be an increasing bisexuality.
Many reporters have commented on the fact that menage a trios activity is not uncommon among those who practice organized adultery or organized mass sex--and it has been suggested that they are becoming the rule, rather than the exception.
(In some cases, homosexual performances are used as a prelude to heterosexual intercourse; in still others, both homo- and hetero- sexual activities take place at once, in an orgy. In either case, single men and women are usually welcomed as members of organized sex groups, if they are willing to adapt themselves to the desires of the others and to have sex with two persons at once.) It is also reported that a large number of the people who begin by merely witnessing homosexual acts, later allow such acts be performed on them, and then become active participants in such acts, performing them, as well as submitting to them.
(Some sexologists view the de-feminization/demasculinization of appearance as a teen-age fad reflecting a burgeoning tolerance for the emergence of bi-sexuality; predict we're witnessing, at the present time, the birth of a unisexual society in which there will be no existential difference between homosexual and heterosexual intercourse; a society in which the only criteria for selection of a sexual partner will be whether the two concerned are compatible... sexually and otherwise... and the quality of the orgasm experienced with a partner!) There are those who maintain that the 'wife-swappers' and 'date-traders' are out-and-out sex maniacs; that anyone who can't have a satisfactory sexual relationship within the proscriptions of legality must be other than normal. Others maintain that the war, the nuclear capability of nations, the continuing confrontations at the brink of disaster between Capitalism and Communism is the catalyst which is inducing this increased concern with sex; that the lack of spiritual faith and the brainwashing effects of the mass media are responsible.
But--excepting only 'wife-swapping' and 'date-trading' (because of the lack of historical statistical verification) we can state that the American sex life hasn't changed notably in this century!
This was one of the more important--and generally ignored--findings of Dr. Kinsey and his associates. When they divided their subjects into groups on the basis of ages, they found no discernible differences in the sex practices of the different generations. Which is to say that, while 1966's citizen may more freely discuss his sex activity than would his opposite number in 1946 or 1906-- he isn't doing anything now which wasn't being done then!
* * *
In other words, Grandpa and Grandma did the same things we're doing today (and, roughly, in the comparable percentages) but we talk freely about it (comparatively) while they kept it a secret!
As for group sex (widely attributed to the 'wife-swapping' set as basic activity) while there exists no statistical support for any conjectures as to numbers, the evidence of its existence goes as far back as Babylonian times. Later, in Rome, the sex-orgy was more or less commonplace, depending (as statistics also show today is true) on the citizen's socio-economic status. However, as an organized activity, the only evidences of its existence and rapid spread have been recorded since the close of World War II.
* * *
The most important consideration of change is its effect. What would be the effect of changing the sex laws?
For one thing, this would not bring a measurable change in acts now considered criminal (at worst, there would be only a minimal change). As we found upon the repeal of Prohibition, no drastic alteration in the nation's drinking habits resulted. (Indeed, some statisticians maintain that the amount of alcohol consumed went lower when the use and possession of liquor was no longer glossed with the fascinating aura of law-breaking.) Experience, then, indicates no reason to expect any such change in the nation's sex habits, in the long run, since what would occur is the legalization of what is already going on. There would be some, more subtle, results from an alteration in sex laws.
Police could eliminate homosexuals from vice squad surveillance; the time and money could be devoted to other law enforcement pursuits.
If contraceptives were freely available to all, there would be some decrease in the number of illegitimate births.
Individuals now jailed for sex violations would leave space in overcrowded penal institutions and mental hospitals. (It is not considered likely that laws prohibiting sex crimes of violence, corruption of the young, and offenses against public decency would be rescinded.) The divorce rate should fall--since sexual incompatibility is a major cause. It would be possible, after a legal reform, for couples to learn (without violating the law) if they were sexually compatible before marriage; and for married couples to expand the scope of their sexual activities to insure gratifications for both partners.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Having explored sex laws; their possible effects upon us; why change is needed; and the predictable results of change--we come, now, to a consideration of specific changes.
A wholesale repeal of sex laws would hardly make sense--though many of them should be removed from the books, there are new laws which should be enacted and a number of existing laws which require reform.
Foremost in importance is a law which would permit sex education to be compulsory for all adolescents; to include the other aspects of married life for young adults.
Too few states offer any education in those areas; when it is given, it is usually too little--and too late. The classes are, normally, discussions of the mechanics of conception and reproduction.
Such education should not only include the above but--beginning in the sixth or seventh grade-the methods of contraception should be included to combat the spreading incidence of pregnancy among schoolgirls of these grades. Sex courses should include information on the ways and means of stimulation and intercourse--and the information should be presented with no moral assessment-it should be totally factual and dispassionate in presentation. Preferably, such instruction should be known as Life Study and should be continuous and progressive in the curriculum.
In the early grades, it could take the form of learning about the roles of mother and father; but, by the fourth or fifth grade, the students should have learned the basic facts of reproduction. (It is known that students of 10 or 11 are fully able to understand the matter if it is presented competently; and, since students will then be on the verge of puberty, it would be well to inform them of the reasons why their bodies will be changing.) Then, in the sixth or seventh grade (when the average girl will be in the midst of puberty and fast approaching the time when she will be able to have children; and when both boys and girls will be starting to date, thus moving into periods when sexual exploration will begin) instruction should be given in contraceptive techniques.
Instruction in sexual techniques should follow in the eighth grade--at the latest!...
This is not so radical a proposal as it might appear: The less developed societies (as well as many highly developed civilizations in history) have felt that the proper time for the young to learn about sexual matters is when they reach adulthood (biologically, at least); and many experts say that this is the best time. As it stands now, 64% of our teen-age girls learn about sex from their contemporaries, with only 13% learning from school or books and the rest from their parents. (By giving teenagers realistic information, many of the 'old wives tales' would be dispelled. Among them these fallacies which are accepted as verities: Kissing can make a girl pregnant, as can performing fellatio; sexual intercourse before marriage causes venereal diseases; shaking a bottle of soda and directing the foam into the vagina is an effective means of contraceptive; a man is allotted only so many spermatozoa and if they're wasted by masturbation it'll decrease his chances of becoming a father; too much intercourse will make a man impotent or a girl a nymphomaniac; and, you can tell whether a person was conceived in or out of wedlock by their navel.) In addition to the information on the sexual aspects of marriage, 'life' education should include instruction on the other aspects of marriage. Every student (male and female) should have a semester of basic kitchen skills (The average college student can't prepare a simple meal unless it comes from cans or frozen foods. And men should know a little about cooking, if only for emergencies.), a semester in basic household repairs (so girls could replace fuses, fix stuck doors, etc., if their husbands weren't there). Information should also be given on household finances (budgeting, how to buy on time with safety), insurance, child care and the other things a couple should know before getting married.
(Coupled with this course in 'life education' should be a change in the law to permit married students to continue with their education and to allow pregnant girls to finish school.)
* * *
Along with the education in sexual areas, the law should be changed to permit the sale of contraceptives to teen-agers. (When a course that dealt with contraception was offered in the Pittsburg schools, illegitimate births dropped by 50%, and many of the girls who did have illegitimate children said the pregnancies resulted because neither they nor their boy-friends could get contraceptive devices. If necessary, clinics should be run in connection with the schools to dispense such devices.) The age of consent should be lowered to 10. (This is the age recommended by the American Law Institute in its Model Penal Code.) Any sexual act with a child below that age should be treated as forcible rape.
Along with that, the following section should be added to the law: Whoever has intercourse with a girl who is below the age of 16, when he is more than four years her senior, shall be guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, unless she was known to be of previously unchaste character, or it can be shown that he was reasonable in his assumption that she was older than she actually is.
The American Law Institute recommends such a passage, with allowances for defense on the basis of a mistaken idea of the girl's age; but does not allow for such a defense if the child is under 10. And, unlike the ALI, we would recommend stiffening the penalty as the difference in age increases.
We would recommend removal of both the fornication and sodomy statutes--with this provision: if there was a difference of more than four years in the age of the partners, and one partner was under 16, the older would be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor in homosexual acts (either male or female homosexuality).
Adultery should cease to be a matter of concern under the criminal code, although it should be retained as grounds for divorce. However, to protect the mate (and any children) from being abandoned because of an adulterous affair, desertion should be a criminal charge.
Surprisingly, we would retain the offense of cohabitation and we would make it a crime in all states (at present, it is such in only 15 states), because we are in favor of formal marriage as opposed to what is called 'shacking-up' on a permanent or common law basis.
We now come to suggestions that would reform laws that deal indirectly with a person's sex life, such as those dealing with marriage, divorce, and abortion.
We would remove all proscriptions about who may marry, except those which deal with the marriage of relatives. But, we would also make it mandatory for both parties to have a blood test, and install a period between the application and the issuance of the license so the couple could think the matter over.
In addition, we would suggest adoption of a modified version of the plan advocated by Robert Heinlein and others, which would, under normal circumstances, put a limit on the life of a marriage.
Under this plan, unless the couple requested otherwise, a marriage would last a specified time-- say one year--and would be automatically renewed unless both partners filed affidavits to the effect that they wished it to terminate. In addition, if the woman became pregnant, the marriage would be extended for 21 years from the birth of the child (and re-extended for 21 years from the birth of each subsequent child), with the marriage then dissoluble only through divorce, so long as any of the children were minors.
(By allowing a couple to designate, however, that they wished to establish their marriage on a life-long basis, they could be married in a religious ceremony; however, entering into an agreement that the marriage end by mutual consent at the end of a year would involve none. This would be a step toward removing church influence from civil matters--as the constitution directs--and make the marriage contract conform more nearly to other contractual arrangements.) With regard to divorce, several reforms seem called for.
First--before any divorce be granted, both parties should be required to retain the services of a marriage counselor and try to salvage the marriage by following his advice for at least a year.
Should this fail, then the matter should proceed in one of two ways: should the couple agree that a divorce was mutually desirable, they should arrange between them to divide the property and make provision for the support of children. This arrangement would then be submitted for judicial approval, to make the agreement a matter of record and to safeguard its being followed.
If the couple was unable to agree on such a plan, or if one party was opposed to ending the marriage then the procedures now in use would be used.
Second--once the divorce were granted, under either plan, the man would be responsible for 50 to 75% of the support of the children until age 18--or until their graduation from college, should they attend. In the event the ex-wife re-married and the children were adopted by the new husband, the father would have no further legal responsibility. The amount of support contributed by the father should take into consideration his property and earning power, and the wife's property and earning power.
Third--unless the wife was past 40, or unable to work because of physical or mental handicaps, she should not receive alimony. Should she have no income nor property of her own (other than the residence, in the event she retained it) the husband should be responsible for the expense of fitting her to earn a living; of finding a job; moving or buying a car for transportation to and from work; as well as half the expense of hiring someone to care for the children. If the wife were over 40--or unable to work--alimony should be in order if the wife had no income nor property. In the event the husband sued for divorce and was granted it was because of the wife's transgressions, no alimony should be granted. In the event one or the other was hospitalized on a long-term basis, the law should permit divorce, so long as the healthy spouse continued to accept financial responsibility--if he or she had done so previous to the divorce. Permitting divorce by mutual consent would cut down on the case load of our already overburdened courts. The load could be further reduced by requiring the counseling and one-year reconciliation effort, since competent help can often save a marriage by demonstrating to the couple where they made their mistakes and showing them how to rectify them.
Of all the areas concerned with sexual activity, with the possible exception of oral-genital sex, none arouses so much protest over suggested change as abortion. Nonetheless, the law critically needs revision here.
In most states, today, abortion is permitted-- legally--only when the birth of the child would endanger the life of the mother. And there is a complicated procedure which must be followed before the operation may be performed.
Several states, presently, are considering legislation which would relax abortion requirements, and permit it under additional circumstances. Instances in which pregnancy resulted from rape or incest; cases in which there was likelihood a child might be deformed at birth; as well as situations in which the mother-to-be was under a certain age--usually 13 years old.
However, these bills are only being considered, and may not become law. Even these changes under consideration do not go far enough. Before going into the reasons for this statement, consider the following: One of the chief moral objections to abortion is that it constitutes termination of a human life-- killing--which is proscribed under the sixth commandment. Besides being a violation of the constitution, which is generally considered to require the separation of Church and State, laws based upon the sixth commandment are now thought, in some quarters, to stand upon a fallacious belief. Recent research indicates that the sixth commandment-- rather than prohibiting killing--forbids only murder. Killing, then, as an act of war or in defense of life or property, seems not to violate the commandment under this revised interpretation. The prohibition is held by some scholars to apply only to killing with malicious and premeditated intent or killing in the course of committing a crime.
Logically, if we accept the idea that abortion violates the sixth commandment by interference with procreation, then it would appear that any and all efforts at contraception should share that consideration. They accomplish the same thing.
However, it would seem more logical to consider abortion as another method of birth control, applied before (instead of after) conception, rather than including it as an act of murder or a killing.
With these thoughts in mind, take a cold look at the facts and figures of abortion: While no accurate statistical data is available, knowledgeable estimates place the number at about 1,000,000 annually--which translates into a ratio of one pregnancy out of five being terminated by abortion.
If your thought, here, is: "that's a lot of girls in trouble... " revise your thinking. The majority of abortion patients are not young, unmarried girls-- the greatest number of abortions are performed upon women who are middle-aged--and married!
To dispel another widely-held belief (which is also fallacious), the average abortion is not performed under dangerous conditions by a person who flunked out of medical school, by a doctor whose license to practice has been revoked, a nurse or a quack; but by a legitimate medical practitioner-perhaps the same doctor who'd have delivered the child had the pregnancy been permitted to go full term.
Inducing an abortion is a fairly simple operation, and also fairly risk-free (belying the objection to abortion on the grounds of its danger). The danger from abortion arises from the operation being performed under conditions which cause infection-- but any operation performed under such conditions is dangerous. In Hungary, where abortion is legal, the mortality rate is six per 100,000. This is lower than the United States mortality rate for tonsillectomies, which kill 17 patients per 100,000. The above figures for abortion mortality include only those operations performed in the first three months of pregnancy. From the fourth through the sixth month, the mortality rate leaps to 300 per 100,000. No figures are available for abortion mortality in the final three months of pregnancy but such an operation is rarely performed.
(This is one reason which makes securing a committee approval for abortion an abortive effort in itself: by the time the evidence is considered and a decision reached, the prospective mother is usually four or more months into her term.) Making abortions illegal in our society has done nothing but raise the cost. It's estimated that, if abortions were legal, the cost would be $50 to $75, including an overnight stay in the hospital. Now, the cost is between $500 and $1,000 when the operation is performed by a competent doctor. Further, in consideration of the high cost, it means that those who would most benefit by abortion are denied it because of the prohibitive fee. Were abortion legal (and inexpensive) the underprivileged would be better able to control the size of their families (contraceptives being not infallible) with a resultant (and perhaps, drastic) reduction of the welfare burden.
One further question always rises in any discussion of abortion: Does a woman have a moral right to terminate the life of an unborn child?
Unfortunately, far too seldom is there any consideration given an equally important question in the matter: does society have the moral right to require a woman to bear an unwanted or illegitimate child?
The point is clear: is it right to bring young lives, unwanted and unloved, into the world--or to permit abortion? Does society consider the sentence it is passing on an unwanted or illegitimate child--or it considering its own comfort in the matter of a confused, mass conscience? Further, the first pains public utterances of enlightened leaders. Soon or late, control of the population size must be attained-or the chaos of starvation will set in.
* * *
On page 135, changes in the laws regarding prostitution were touched upon. Not all, but certainly, some of them cry for change.
Solicitation should be controlled; B-girls and street-walkers should be eliminated; just as should the pimps, the procurers and others who five from a prostitute's earnings (except minor children or aged parents--or minor brothers or sisters she supports. Also, the elimination, to a marked extent, of call girls should be considered.
This seems preferable: All prostitutes should be licensed--required to secure a permit to engage in prostitution. Doing so would permit control of these women as sources of venereal infection and would further permit their income to be taxed. As it is now, prostitutes don't report income since to do so would be a tacit admission of a criminal act. The average call-girl may earn as much as $30,000 in a year.
Many other countries (in the United States, only the State of Nevada) do this, presently: regulate prostitution in the same manner other businesses are regulated. Such control pretty effectively eliminates the influence of organized crime since a prostitute, under this system, does not need political protection. Further, prostitutes would be able to retain most of their earnings, which normally go into other hands--those of people who do not perform the business but reap the lion's share of its profits.
If, then, prostitutes were barred from soliciting on the streets, or in the bars, where would they be allowed to operate? They could be confined to one or more buildings, depending on numbers--which is done in Germany--or they could operate from their own apartments, as in England. If the second pattern were followed, the women could be allowed to advertise, as the English do--though the prostitutes describe themselves 'models', 'masseuses' or 'French Teachers'. If such fraudulent descriptions were not permissible, they could also be called 'comfort providers', 'personal entertainers' or 'part-time companions'. The idea of prostitutes advertising isn't new to this country, the women in New Orleans' Storyville used to put out directories, listing the houses and describing the girls who worked in them!
If call-girls were permitted to operate, they would have to bring their dates to the sanctioned house, go to his house or apartment, or take him to her residence. This would reduce the possibility of the public becoming upset due to prostitutes and their dates frequenting hotels or motels where there was a family trade.) The owner of a hotel, rooming house or motel, who wished to allow prostitutes to operate there would also be required to acquire a permit... unless only one such girl used his premises.
Many people feel that legalizing prostitution is an insult to civilization, that it will break up marriages and corrupt the young. However, many experts have voiced the opinion that if prostitution were allowed under strict legal control, it would reduce the number of criminal assaults, and the number of illegitimate births. Remembering prohibition's lesson, if a man desires to use a prostitute, he will find one whether they operate legally or not, and the law should forbid any person below the age of 16 to engage in such activity either as a customer or a professional. (However, it is felt by some sexologists and sociologists that, if a man could go to a prostitute freely, he would be less apt to attempt to attempt pre-marital intercourse with a girl unless he were serious in his intention to marry her.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing pages is that our sex laws are antiquated; a confused mish-mash stemming partly from efforts to curb offenses against society but weakened by proscriptions forced into the statutes by moral codes which have no legal validity.
Much of the legislation on the hooks governing private sex activity is largely unenforced or unenforceable, but because of the highly-vocal moralists, legislators avoid raising the issue of change. Yet there is ample evidence to demonstrate that "desire doth outrun performance" insofar as contemporary sex practices vs compliance with the law is concerned.
Normally, widespread and continuing violation or flouting of a statute is a danger signal that the law is wrong--not attuned to the mores--and is a source of danger rather than a protection which our laws must be.
The continuing tyranny of those whose guilt of fear compels them to denounce as unclean anyone who opposes their Puritanical opinions is as poisonous as Communism--and tarred by use of Communist weapons. Due to the Comstock cult, sex is still a dirty word and any discussion of it evokes in them, supposedly, shock and revulsion. Such people suffer from a blind ignorance of human nature. Were they really sincere in their efforts to purify their fellow man, they would recognize the one thing they consistently ignore. That is: whatever you prohibit--whatever you proscribe--whatever is relegated to whispers when it is discussed--these things will immediately assume an importance and a false desirability far in excess of their import.
The attitude of mind which holds "sex" and "sin" synonymous is a warped belief, condemning as it does, all humankind to an origin which is evil by such a standard. If man is evil in creation, he must also be evil in his existence. A wolf cub does not become a different animal when he begins to breathe for himself. Since man's most powerful inner urge is that to perpetuate himself in offspring, the "sex'V'sin" reciprocal finds wide adherence among the guilty of mind--not all of whom are guilty of heart. There are some pretty good people in the world, despite what the "sin" philosophy calls them.' Linking the meaning of "sin" with "law" violates a basic tenet of this republic. The strict separation of Church and State is an interdiction imposed in wisdom and experience by the founding fathers. They knew all about tyranny; and the weakening moral fiber of a population which permits the ancient barriers to be eroded by petty despotism is part of an increasing permissiveness which besmirches the clean facade of a government unique in history.
No moral proscription, thus, should ever find its way into law. Whatever behavioral bars a religion or cult imposes upon itself--so long as they're not illegal--is no business of government. But they do not belong in the body of law. Specifically, they are forbidden a place in the law, despite the fact they have been allowed to sneak in.
Largely in these outlawed moves to translate "sin" into "law" does the law demonstrate that it is, indeed, an ass.
Further, these laws provide a constant danger that love--like crime--may not pay!
