re do assignment
P A R T T W E N T Y - S E V E N
C O N S E N S U S A N D C O N F O R M I T Y
M A R I T A L S T A T U S A N D S E X U A L O U T L E T
Among the social factors affecting sexual activity, marital status is the one that would seem most likely to influence both
the frequencies and the sources of the individual’s outlet. The data, however, need detailed analyses.
S o c i a l a n d L e g a l L i m i t a t i o n s
In Social and religious philosophies, there have been two antagonistic interpretations of sex. There have been
cultures and religions which have inclined to the hedonistic doctrine that sexual activity is justifiable for its immediate and
pleasurable return; and there have been cultures and religions which accept sex primarily as the necessary means of pro-
creation, to be enjoyed only in marriage, and then only if reproduction is the goal of the act. The Hebrews were among the
Asiatics who held this ascetic approach to sex; and Christian sexual philosophy and English-American sex law is largely
built around these Hebraic interpretations, around Greek ascetic philosophies, and around the asceticism of some of the
Roman cults (Angus 1925, May 1931).
A third possible interpretation of sex as a normal biologic function, acceptable in whatever form it is manifested,
has hardly figured in either general or scientific discussions. By English and American standards, such an attitude is con-
sidered primitive, materialistic or animalistic, and beneath the dignity of a civilized and educated people. Freud has con-
tributed more than the biologists toward an adoption of this biologic viewpoint.
Since English-American moral codes and sex laws are the direct outcome of the reproductive interpretation of sex,
they accept no form of socio-sexual activity outside of the marital state; and even marital intercourse is more or less lim-
ited to particular times and places and to the techniques which are most likely to result in conception. By this system, no
socio-sexual outlet is provided for the single male or for the widowed or divorced male, since they cannot legally procreate;
and homosexual and solitary sources of outlet, since they are completely without reproductive possibilities, are penalized
or frowned upon by public opinion and by the processes of the law.
Specifically, English-American legal codes restrict the sexual activity of the unmarried male by characterizing all
pre-marital, extra-marital, and post-marital intercourse as rape, statutory rape, fornication, adultery, prostitution, association
with a prostitute, incest, delinquency, a contribution to delinquency, assault and battery, or public indecency—all of which
are offenses with penalties attached. However it is labelled, all intercourse outside of marriage (non-marital intercourse) is
illicit and subject to penalty by statute law in most of the states of the Union, or by the precedent of the common law on
which most courts, in all states, chiefly depend when sex is involved. In addition to their restrictions on hetero-sexual inter-
course, statute law and the common law penalize all homosexual activity, and all sexual contacts with animals; and they
specifically limit the techniques of marital intercourse. Mouth-genital and anal contacts are punishable as crimes whether
they occur in heterosexual or homosexual relations and whether in or outside of marriage. Such manual manipulation as
occurs in the petting which is common in the younger generation has been interpreted in some courts as an impairment of
the morals of a minor, or even as assault and battery. The public exhibition of any kind of sexual activity, including self
masturbation, or the viewing of such activity, is punishable as a contribution to delinquency or as public indecency.
There have been occasional court decisions which have attempted to limit the individual’s right to solitary mas-
turbation; and the statutes of at least one state (Indiana Acts 1905, ch. 169, & 473, p. 584) rule that the encouragement
of self masturbation is an offense punishable as sodomy. Under a literal interpretation of this law, it is possible that a
teacher, biologist, psychologist, physician or other person who published the scientifically determinable fact that mas-
turbation does no physical harm might be prosecuted for encouraging some person to “commit masturbation.” There
have been penal commitments of adults who have given sex instruction to minors, and there are evidently some courts who are inclined to interpret all sex instruction as a contribution to the delinquency of minors. In state controlled penal
and mental institutions, and in homes for dependent children, the administrations are authorized to establish rules of
sexual behavior which go beyond the definitions of courtroom law. It is the usual practice in such institutions to impose
penalties, including physical punishment, for masturbation, and we have histories from at least two institutions which
imposed equally severe penalties for nocturnal emissions. The United States Naval Academy at Annapolis considers evi-
dence of masturbation sufficient grounds for refusing admission to a candidate (U.S. Naval Acad. Regul., June 1940). It
is probable that the courts would defend the right of the administrators of institutions to impose such ultimate restrictions
upon the sexual outlets of their charges.
Concepts of sexual perversion depend in part on this same reproductive interpretation of sex. Sodomy laws are
usually indefinite in their descriptions of acts that are punishable; perversions are defined as unnatural acts, acts contrary
to nature, bestial, abominable, and detestable. Such laws are interpretable only in accordance with the ancient tradition of
the English common law which, as has already been indicated, is committed to the doctrine that no sexual activity is jus-
tifiable unless its objective is procreation.
Official church attitudes toward contraception and abortion similarly stem from the demand that there be no inter-
ference with reproduction. They are consistent in denying the use of contraceptives in marriage and in intercourse which
is outside of marriage, for intercourse outside of marriage is illegal and not a legitimate source of procreation. Medical and
presumably scientific data which are adduced in support of the objections to contraception and abortion, are rationalizations
or confusions of the real issue, which is the reproductive value of any kind of sexual behavior.
In addition to establishing restrictions by way of the statutory and common law, society at large, and each element
in it, have developed mores that even more profoundly affect the frequency of sexual activity and the general pattern of
behavior. Some of the community attitudes fortify certain of the legal interpretations, even though no segment of society
accepts the whole of the legal code, as its behavior and expressed attitudes demonstrate (Chapter 10). Often the social pro-
scriptions involve more than is in the law, and the individual who conforms with the traditions of the social level to which
he belongs, is restricted in such detail as the written codes never venture to cover. Group attitudes become his “con-
science,” and he accepts group interpretations, thinking them the product of his own wisdom. Each type of sex act acquires
values, becomes right or wrong, socially useful or undesirable. Esthetic values are attached: limitations are set on the
times and places where sexual relations may be had; the social niceties (and the law) forbid the presence of witnesses to
sexual acts; there are standards of physical cleanliness and supposed requirements of hygiene and sanitation which may
become more important than the gratification of sexual drives; the forms of courtesy between men and women may receive
especial attention when sexual relations are involved; the effect of the relations upon the sexual partner, the effect upon the
subsequent sexual, marital, or business relations with the partner, the effect upon the subject’s own self esteem or subse-
quent mental or physical happiness, or conflict—may all be involved in the decision to have, or not to have, a socio-
sexual relation. While the decision seems to rest upon personal desires, ideals, and concepts of esthetics, the individual’s
standards are very largely set by the mores of the social level to which he belongs. In the end, their effect is strongly to
limit his opportunity for intercourse, or for most other types of sexual activity, especially if he is unmarried, widowed, sep-
arated, or divorced.
A lower level male has fewer esthetic demands and social forms to satisfy. By the time he becomes an adolescent,
he has learned that it is possible to josh any passing girl, ask for a simple social date, and, inside of a few minutes, suggest
intercourse. Such financial resources as will provide a drink, tickets for a movie, or an automobile ride, are at that level suf-
ficient for making the necessary approaches. Such things are impossible for most better educated males. Education develops
a demand for more elaborate recreation and more extended social contacts. The average college male plans repeated dates, din-
ners, expensive entertainments, and long-time acquaintances before he feels warranted in asking for a complete sexual rela-
tion. There is, in consequence, a definitely greater limitation on the heterosexual activities of the educated portion of the
population, and a higher frequency of solitary outlets in that group. Upper level males rationalize their lack of socio-sexual
activities in terms of right and wrong, but it is certain that the social formalities have a great deal to do with their chastity.
In any case, at any social level, the human animal is more hampered in its pursuit of sexual contacts than the prim-
itive anthropoid in the wild; and, at any level, the restrictions would appear to be most severe for males who are not mar-
ried. One should expect, then, that the sexual histories of unmarried males would contrast sharply with the histories of
married adults; and that, at the end of two thousand years of social monitoring, at least some unmarried males might be
found who follow the custom and the law and live abstinent, celibate, sublimated, and wholly chaste lives. Scientists will,
however, want to examine the specific data showing the effect of marital status on the human male’s total sexual outlet, and
on his choice of particular outlets (if he has any) in his single, married, or post-marital states. T O T A L S E X U A L O U T L E T
The mean frequencies of total sexual outlet for the married males are always, at all age levels, higher than the total outlets
for single males; but, as already pointed out (Chapter 6), essentially all single males have regular and usually frequent
sexual outlet, whether before marriage, or after being widowed, separated, or divorced. Of the more than five thousand
males who have contributed to the present study, only 1 per cent has lived for as much as five years (after the onset of ado-
lescence and outside of old age) without orgasm.
As previously recorded, the mean frequency of the total outlet for the single males between 16 and 20 is (on the
basis of the U. S. Corrections) about 3.3 per week (Table 60, Figures 50-52). The mean frequency of total outlet for the
married male is about 4.8 per week, which is 47 per cent above the average outlet of the single male. At 30, the frequen-
cies for the married males are about 18 per cent above those of the single males, and approximately this relation holds for
some period of years. Beyond 40 years of age, the single males may actually exceed the married males in their sexual fre-
quencies. In adolescent years, the restrictions upon the sexual activity of the unmarried male are greatest. He finds it more
difficult to locate sources of outlet and he has not learned the techniques for approaching and utilizing those sources when
they are available. Nevertheless, his frequency between adolescence and 16 does average about 3.0 per week and between
16 and 20 it amounts to nearly 3.4 per week. This represents arousal that leads to orgasm on an average of about every
other day. By the time he is 30, the single male has become much more efficient in his social approaches and does not lag
far behind the married individual in his performance. Considering the physical advantage which the married individual has
in securing intercourse without going outside of his own home, it is apparent that the older single male develops skills in
making social approaches and finding places for sexual contacts which far exceed the skills of married persons. Beau
Brummels and Casanovas are not married males. A few of the married males who are involved in promiscuous extra-mar-
ital activity are the only ones whose facilities begin to compare with those found among unmarried groups. It is notable that
in the male homosexual, where long-term unions are not often maintained and new partners are being continually sought,
there are many persons who preserve this same facility for making social contacts for long periods of years.
The differences that exist between the total activities of the younger married male and the younger unmarried male
are, to some degree, a measure of the effectiveness of the social pressures that keep the single male’s performance below his
native capacity; although the lower rates in the single males may depend, in part, upon the possibility that less responsive
males may not marry so young, or may never marry. On the other hand, the fact that the single male, from adolescence to
30 years of age, does have a frequency of nearly 3.0 per week is evidence of the ineffectiveness of social restrictions and
of the imperativeness of the biologic demands. For those who like the term, it is clear that there is a sexual drive which
cannot be set aside for any large portion of the population, by any sort of social convention. For those who prefer to think
in simpler terms of action and reaction, it is a picture of an animal who, however civilized or cultured, continues to respond
to the constantly present sexual stimuli, albeit with some social and physical restraints.
In addition to the differences in frequencies of total outlet between married and single males, there are minor dif-
ferences in incidence and in range of variation in the groups. Between adolescence and 15 years of age, 95 per cent of the
unmarried boys have some sort of sexual outlet. From 16 to 35 years of age, 99 per cent or more of these males are engaging
in some form of sexual activity (Table 60). Among the married males, a full 100 per cent is sexually active between 16 and
35 years of age. Beyond 35, the incidence figures drop for single males, and at a somewhat faster rate than for married males.
The differences are not great.
The range of variation in frequency of outlet in any particular age group is also nearly identical for single and mar-
ried males. In both populations (Table 49), there are individuals who engage in sexual activity only a few times a year, and
there are some who engage in sexual activities regularly 3 or 4 or more times per day (29 or more per week). The lower
average rates for single males are not dependent upon the fact that there are no high-rating individuals in that group, but
upon the fact that there is a large number of the single males who have lower rates, and a larger number of married males
who have higher rates. At least half of the younger married males have outlets which average 3 or more per week, whereas
only a third of the single males fall into that category.
Throughout both single and married histories, there is a steady decline in total sexual outlet in successive age
groups (Chapter 7). After 30 years of age this decline in any 5-year period (Figures 50-52) is very nearly as great as the
differences between married and single males of the same age group. Age is eventually as important as all of the social,
moral, and legal factors which differentiate single from married histories.
