Project “Growing Up Sexually” (January-September 2002) originally was borne out of a literature review financially supported by the Dutch Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Seksualiteit. It comprises of a two-volume, bimodal overview of cross-cultural material relevant for the study of preadult sexual behaviour curricula and trajectories. The first volume (hereafter referred to as “Atlas”, Vol. I) consists of an annotated bibliography using a rough geo-/ ethnographical organisation. The outcome is a heterogenous collection of accounts of sexual behaviour trajectories that may be or have been typical for given communities within a given ethnohistorical space or time span. The second volume (hereafter referred to as “Thematic Volume”, Vol. II) tentatively elaborates on this collection, by (1) organising and challenging traditions, theoretical paradigms, and meta-scientific positionings pertaining to “sexual development” issues provided by anthropologists; which, together with (2) the influx of (non-) cross-culturalist sociological data and perspectives, is to accommodate (3) a cross-cultural presentation of Atlas data within a polythematic format.
Taken together, the Volumes provide a reference guide to ethnografia, historia, and sociologia not previously available. As such, it elaborates on and adds to specific sections of such pioneering initiatives by Ploß and Ford (1945, etc.; Ford and Beach, 1951), the body of relevant data resulting from the numeric cross-cultural method (as reviewed in Vol. II, Appendix I), such recent projects as the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality, and the range of authors that have provided limited and arbitrary colloquia of ethnographic accounts. The Atlas provides for a working database of materials which may be used in future ethnological, and ethnographic, efforts; it does not, at present, test hypotheses, contest or cross-analyse data, or introduce original field work (cf. infra). The collection is a working database in that it explicitly invites elaboration, and organises questions rather than answers.
Specifically, the scope here is wider than previous anthropological entries. The study of “cultural developmental sexology” embraces all instances of the potential “sexual” environment of the child, the factors that allegedly “benefit” or “corrupt” the child, as well as his/her own “healthy” and “pathological” pursuits in sexualibus. More of contemporary sexology, however legitimate in its existence, leaves a negativist afterimage that issues “abusive” interconnections of these allegedly separate worlds. However implicitly providing essential insights to sexual cultures, most of this literature, which is quite a distinct tradition, does not offer an integral interpretation of the “culture” it is embedded in (ethnocentrism). It is therefore underrepresented in the current phase of the project. Again, one must not imagine studying children’s sexual (sub)cultures, if any, by avoiding the boundaries of its working space; that boundaries are the central indicators of its identity and autonomy.
The project (January-October 2002) was financially supported by the Dutch Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Seksualiteit. The Fund supports the study of developmental sexualities from non judgmental, multi-disciplinary perspectives. A concurrent review project supported by the Fund has been manufactured by the Dutch Institute for Socio-Sexological Research (formerly, NISSO).
The current publication is best regarded as
an interim database of resources supporting ongoing interpretation efforts.
It follows a preliminary webpublication at the website of the Magnus
Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology,
GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/GUS_AFS.HTM as of
With both casuistic and theoretical materials, the author would like to identify basic entries to preadult sexualities as sensitive to ethnographic variation: as “development”, as “learned”, as “natural”, and as “problematic” categories. In tune with the chosen theoretical work-up, I have tried to centralise children’s narratives, though particularly rare, and native accounts, though fragmentary. A collateral interest was to some extent positioned as providing a baseline for the project’s theoretical agenda: the sexological situating of the “child” as developmental, as protosocial (protofunctional) and as prenormative. Author’s preliminary surveying specifically issued the following topics as sexological explananda:
Major conceptual shifts in Western societies have in recent decades sensitised and reproblematised the concept of sex as “development”. A thesis I have found worthwhile to support (with little diversion from classics that shape modernist views), the frameworking of genital eroticism as “developing” human attribute has never been articulated in the mainstream industrial and post-industrial academic world, and this obscure status can readily be noted in various stages of its ethnographic output . The initial reception and digestion of Freudian arguments, of course, provides a thick, yet biased, exposé of negotiations that seem, by all means, progressively polarised.
But why “Growing Up Sexually”?
To some extent, the data speak for themselves as contesting archaic ways of cross-cultural schematisation, including such formulations as “sexual restraint”, “control”, or such obviously dissatisfying reversals as “nonrestraint”, “permissiveness” and “tolerance” ; formulations, I reckon, that are concordant with a socio-economic background of forefront nationalist sexological cultures. These biases have halted statistically sophisticated images of an ethnographic range of “sexual socialisation” curricula as, say, promoting and truly preparatory rather than supportive, anti-interventionalist and circumstantial. Examples bring out most clearly sexual status categories alien to (and to variable extent, incompatible with) the contemporary post-industrial set of mind often circumscribed as “Western”: ceremonial inauguration, ritual liminality, age disparate patterning and recruitment, parenting customs, etc. The reader has to understand that any arm-chair ethnologist should carefully consider his/her own moral bias. My bias is that I gather data for colloquial consideration, and refrain from comments pertaining to applicability within particularist ethical systems. I do not, for instance, think of curricular (life phase-bound, e.g., “adolescent”) “homosexual” behaviour as part of any “developmental gay history” or as part of an imaged collective of “developmental homosexualities” in need of being “reclaimed”, or documented within some salvage project (Vol. II, chapter 8). I also reject the idea that equating all diversion from contemporary “American” ethics with “abuse” furthers understanding of processes within ethnohistorical or ethnopsychiatric terms. I do think, however, that some conceptual delineation of sex “development” issues is basic to any “ethnography”, as it is fundamental in identifying any society, and that it warrants both theory building and closer examination even if, and because, the field might contain messages contrary to contemporary ethical currents. As I have argued elsewhere, basic theoretical concepts of agency and discourse are in danger of, I reckon, being crushed, as they have been in past (colonialism-borne, occidentalist) anthropology. As ethnographers no longer can imagine offering “complete” (or even global) ethnographies, they are no longer excused from imagining worlds where life begins with what is called “puberty” or marriage. Moreover, ethnographers surely have never been allowed to imagine that non-occurrence is a mirror image of not-doing. Becoming more urgent in postmodern ethics, children’s nonagency, and their not-doing, warrants serious and ongoing reappraisal, especially in terms of behaviour deemed “sexual”, “erotic“ and amorous.
“geographies of sexual development” would encompass “[…] how sexualities are
lived out in particular places and spaces”, knowing that “[g]eography
remains a highly contested enterprise”. Aitken, for instance, re-examines the
“geographic child” and his sexuality (2001:p88-105). Yet what, in today’s
post-modern, globalist and universalist context, would an “ethnohistorical
atlas” mean? Surely it warrants an ideological basis for a discussion of
“sexual developmental cultures” somehow to be pieced together from
contemporary proliferating reflection on “sexual cultures”. To reiterate some
of the most standardised arguments against it, culturalist or
cross-culturalist views of “sex” tend to brush over internal variability,
assume historical immutability, and equate cultural relativism with ethical
relativism. In contemporary
A first obvious legitimisation for an atlas, thus, is the historiography of “exocultural” sexology itself. How did and do anthropologists situate the erotic child/adolescent, and why do they at all? A preliminary view would further the argument that exoculturalist sexology serves particular activist, psychoanalytic, medical or other interventionalist agenda. Some may argue, for instance, that the discipline has provided great instrumentality in sexual revolutionist, feminist, and queer theorist curricula, and less so in more eccentric ones, including that of Wilhelm Reich, advocacy for the “intergenerational” cause, and so on.
The project, however critically reviewing these agenda, rejects any absolutist activism in its presentation of data. Rather, I have argued for a tentative “post-developmentalist” reflection on erotic trajectories, which is to foster a scientific stance that operates from an evasion of positivist as well as negativist approaches, but nevertheless facilitates integration of both “the positive” and “the negative” in early sex. It specifically requires a position that is to augment on medical and protectionist curricula that have boomed in, roughly, the last two decades. The outcome, thus, is not an education or protection programme, but an index for understanding “cultural“ processes, understanding the agents and agencies, and understanding the accomplishment of the everyday and the personal. Therefore, the post-developmentalist sexologist needs to draw from historical, ethnographic and sociological data at once. The running Atlas provides subsistence for this sexologist.
The Atlas embodies a geographically and ethnically organised reference archive. However specifying what information is found where, the Atlas does no more than that, and does so in spite of a number of limitations and biases (vide infra).
The current review purposefully rehearses much of the style, narrative and implicit doctrines involved in Western ethnographing of what it calls “early”, “developing”, “rehearsive”, “experimental” and “play” sexualities. Not fully apparent in the review, much of post-Malinowski ethnography has (though with variable enthusiasm) issued “sexual play” as a third part of a classical Freudian trias including oral and anal “training” [note that Freud’s use of ethnography in his entire oeuvre is very meagre and unspecific]. I have refrained from a (historical) analysis that aims to juxtapose emic and etic concepts of the sexual behaviour curriculum and curricularised trajectory. Likewise, in my tentative cross-cultural exposé (Vol. II) I have evaded juxtaposition of sexual socialisation ‘cultures’ at the continental or transnational level, except where specific data or previous essays doing so were available. The reason for this lies in the hesitation the author feels for generalisation from tribal and subtribal specifics, or even from temporal and familial particulars, that have possibly informed much of the accounts here staged. “Cultures”, of course, are never static or isolated unities of ideology and praxis. The work, however bound to available materials, does try to bring out the particular emic whenever offered, and within the format it is offered in. In doing so, I aim to illustrate the phenomenological variety to be appreciated by further subculturalist, or more generally interactionist, or “performative”, accounts of doing sexual “developments”.
To issue “development” as an object for sexological reflection per se, I have adopted the terms “behaviour trajectory” to connote factual experiences and agenda from a child-centred perspective, and “curricula” covering (encultured) ethics and morals as proscribing behaviour sequences and chronologies. The latter view may be called “parent-centred” or cultural script. Critically, both tend to be operationalised by the degree in which they parallel the other, and by the conflict that arises when they do not. In this sense, one may analyse how trajectories may or may not be curricularised or emancipate from such interaction. Curricularisation is that realm of performance in which the “child” does, or is required to, redefine operative chronological scripts of so-defined “sexual” behaviour. These preliminary alternatives to terms as “development” or life “cycles” are to instrumentalise a rejection of absolutist notions of changing sexualities as progress or evolution per se; they also facilitate an emancipation from ethically biased biologist pollutions of pleasure identity concepts.
I have likewise refrained from contesting apparently ingrained ways of categorisation, and from introducing novel perspectives. The present atlas documents geographies of sexology, though necessarily with a definite thematic bias. Whether it, as such, provides a reasonable geography of sexuality as well, is a question I like to postpone at this time.
As will be noted, the data included so far allow a dissatisfactory impression for a number of reasons. The first reason is coverage and “uncoverage” bias. While so far the Africa chapter has produced the most comprehensive tribal data, resulting in an autonomous monograph, references for other continents are fewer in number. The reader will definitely note thematic bias, originating partly as a result of anthropologists’ shifting priority curricula, from resource availability, and partly from surveyor’s use of search engines and paper libraries.
Secondly, maintaining (but also ignoring) original contextual and textual formats may have caused the atlas having become vulnerable for the same caveats introduced above in introducing sexual “culture” and “development” concepts. These issues being covered in some detail in Vol. II, the regret is on my side in that for most cases, very few accessible qualitative accounts could be included to date.
To anticipate on feelings of dissatisfaction as pertains to the ways data have entered narratives, the reader is invited to correct any inconveniences encountered. The work, it needs to be argued, is not an academic work insofar as it does not defend a single thesis undefended by others. Apart from periodic colloquia with established academics/authors in the field, the project did not receive any university affiliation. The question is whether there are (Dutch) universities that would have supported this project. The result is that anyone who feels unjustly addressed by the image provoked by the selected data might argue against such image by reinterpretation, or by reference to alternative resources. The author regrets, however, that a cross-cultural platform that would accommodate such a discussion is not existent at present.
For more specific methodological, historical and other details concerning the project, the reader is referred to the second thematic volume (§0.6).
Paper HRAF references are tracked via category
864. Several websites were used.
The eHRAF is searched and quoted via category 864, and through additional
basic, Boolean and proximity searches. Data and references are drawn from
various medical, sociological and psychological electronic databases,
including Psychinfo, ERIC, FRANCIS, Sociological
Abstracts, Historical Abstracts, Anthropological Index Online
(AIO), Medline, Historie in Titels [Amsterdam], RLG's
Eureka® Anthropological Literature, etc. The 125 page Focused Ethnographic Bibliography for the
Standard Cross-Cultural Sample,
offering pre-coded variables including childhood training (4th
digit), was used as a starting bibliography for library searches. Another
entry was provided by The Dutch Central Catalogue (NCC) using GOO code
73.44 (Cultural Anthropology, Sexuality), in combination with additional
codes. Anthropological, sociological and other sources were especially
searched using JSTOR® (fulltext basic, Boolean and proximity
searches). Introductory data gathering has been effectuated, beside
electronic searches, using a “shelf approach” in selected sections of
A number of references to countries in the fourth volume of Francoeur’s International Encyclopaedia ([IES]) are newly added to this 0.2 edition. Fulltext articles were obtained through many search engines, including JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org), EBSCO Host Research Databases (http://www.ebscohost.com/), PCI Full Text (http://pcift.chadwyck.co.uk), the MUSE Project (http://muse.jhu.edu/search/search.pl), Sciencedirect (http://www.sciencedirect.com, including the use of “alert” functions during the project), SwetsWise (http://www.swetswise.com), Findarticles (http://www.findarticles.com/PI/index.jhtml), Google (http://www.google.nl), Education-Line (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/) and Springer Verlag (http://link.springer.de/search.htm). Selected works were obtained via Blueribbon Books Reborn (http://blueribbon.books-reborn.org). A number of authors provided drafts of their papers.
For a number of materials I had to rely on authorised abstracts. This may have resulted in inclusions being biased for specific formats of online (especially fulltext, fulltext search, abstract, and abstract search) availability. While a fair proportion of the materials is either derived from or double-checked using Internet, the author has largely refrained from hyperlinking to the online location of original materials as are concerned Conference papers, official reports and non-Web published materials. This anticipates on expiration problems and subscription privileges. The reader is invited to check contemporary availability of these items (for which Google search engine is recommended). More than of 1200 relevant online available items were secured on disk by the author for private use. This running electronic archive supplements a large amount of paper works as well as extensive digital “shadow archives” not currently appropriated for publication.
This volume consists of an interim ethnohistoriographic annotated reference atlas of the timing and developmental organisation of “early” sexual behaviour trajectories, with a focus on pre- and peripubescent sexuality, pre-formal and pre-institutional sexual expression, and with attention to native developmental sexologies. Partly due to the variety, selective paucity and variable quality of data, inclusions are variably limited, general and selected. The selections made for inclusions in the Atlas were not informed by any consistent theoretical or methodological format (in opposition to the Thematic volume), other than their immediate relevance within antemarital and premarital settings. In Volume II, sexuality was broadly operationalised within a symbolic constructionist / interactionist perspective, addressing the display, exchange and presumed modification of sets of behaviours and ideologies contextualising and relating to the genital body, the (pre-) marital dyad, and the cultural transmission of “sexual reference systems” in general. This degree of operational limitation setting corresponds to the exploratory, non-eurocentric and non-developmentalist nature of the current study.
Encountered sources commenting on the timing and organisation of “sexarche” and “early” sexuality are listed under appropriate headings. Materials are organised hierarchically by continent, nationality, and by tribal (subtribal) entity. Specific attention is reserved for the chronological (curricular) question. This entails ideologies and practices referring to the biological body proper, as well as the socio-cultural body. No attempts were made to integrate interpretations of the “adult” case, with those of the “developmental” case, or to contrast the “child” with the “adolescent” case per se. Instead, the description of trajectories is informed by indices that describe (1) curricular categories (nominal curricularisation), specifically the sexological concept and application of “puberty”; (2) behavioural patterning; and (3) the salience of curricular hierarchies.
Given the limitations inherent to the methodological format (see Volume II), cited references were not as a rule cross-examined, analysed within a geo- or chronological scope, or, as a routine, challenged with theoretical data. As a result, the survey globally takes on a bibliographic character, primarily occupied with the identification of relevant literature pertaining to qualitative and descriptive sociological materials.
Inclusions are by all means fragmentary and incomplete. A special interest was exercised regarding (a) data covering earlier rather than later life phases; (b) non-Western rather than Western data; (c) qualitative rather than quantitative accounts; (d) cross-cultural rather than monocultural perspectives; (e) historical rather than contemporary data; (f) precolonial rather than colonial or postcolonial data. Emphasis is placed on social plurality (precolonial, rural and ethnic communities), although statements on any nationality and any period were included.
Possibly significant, yet unchecked, additional references are indicated in the texts at the closing of a corresponding paragraph. If available, a link is included to corresponding entries in the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality ([IES]).
The references used in the Thematic Volume largely interdigitate with, and partly overlap, those of the Atlas Volume in a sense that the overlap is small for some chapters, though considerable for others. Broadly, this Subject Volume enumerates, identifies or refers to cases fully (page specifically) referenced in the Atlas Volume. Full duplicate and cross-referencing is kept to a minimum, though. In isolated cases, the first interim draft of the Thematic Volume is based on fully referenced preliminary drafts to be presented as appendices, or separate addenda, to this volume. Isolated references provided in the first interim Thematic volume draft are not included in the first interim Atlas draft due to their highly contextual specificity.
Data are arranged within the following subparagraphs:
(1) for separate chapters (global geographic or ethnographic characterisations, including general statements, if relevant, regarding: morphology alteration practices (before puberty, with a reference to timing and sexual implications or sexological rationale); “genital reference” practices in infancy; “age-stratified same-gender patterns” (with a reference to timing); curricularly institutional “prostitution”; early / age-stratified betrothal; early / age-stratified marriage; formal laws concerning the timing of sexual behaviour (current age of consent); and general accounts of sexual behaviour “socialisation” practices (concepts, effectors, and effectiveness).
For a legitimisation of inclusions criteria, one is referred to the methodological section included in Volume II.
(2) ethnographic particularities: the formerly mentioned data specified for ethnic communities, variably broadened with the following focal items: sexual behaviour patterns (masturbation; cross-sex patterns; same-sex patterns; animal contacts); coitarche and formally recognised onset of courtship routines; formalised and informal curricular segregation by gender; formalised and informal sex education and ”training” customs or institutions (effector, onset, mode, gender differences); formal and informal laws regarding sexual behaviour relevant for the socialisation process; sexologically relevant transitional rites; etc.
Ethnic communities are organised by (principal) nationality of residence. No consistent attempts were made to arrange communities or nationalities in alphabetical order or geographical context. Some collateral (topographic) data were drawn from Encyclopædia Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition CD-ROM. A comprehensive index is not available for any GUS Volume; for Volume 1, please refer to the Index page for a geographic index (on the left).
Single tribes are predominantly covered under the heading of a single nationality (in sporadic cases, linguistic classifications may be used). If residential within the borders of, but not covered under, a given nationality, a tribe is referred to (hyperlinked) at the outset of the respective page; this cross-referencing, however, is incomplete. Tribes and subtribes covered under a given nationality are summed up (hyperlinked) at the outset of that nationality, whereas the principal (or relevant) nationality / nationalities of residence are reciprocally summed up (hyperlinked) at the outset of the particular tribe.
Thus, it seems obvious to state that “country” and “tribe” pages need to be appreciated in conjunction. If more information or references are sought try either the general country page, or the more specific tribe page.
Four types of outlinked resources can be distinguished:
Contrary to the original research proposal resp. perspectives, the present texts have not been edited by native speakers nor have they been co-authored by academic authorities. The reader will take note of the fact that the author has no formal schooling in social science, and no academic training in social anthropology. The author apologises for any errors, errata, reading inconveniences, or lack of coherence or consistency that may thus have resulted, and welcomes corrections. On the other hand, as a bibliography, it appears to be the most voluminous yet offered starting point for informed interpretative tasks. As the material was intended to be used as a basis for further elaboration, I repeat that additional data, as well as more substantial elaboration efforts are invited and applauded.
As a matter of habit, I have employed nonusual notation formats. For instance, I indicate whether in my quotations capitals are reproduced or inserted. An original capital may be uncapitalised “[a]” or the conserve may happen (“[A]”).
The Atlas’ Index includes entries on (sub)tribal name, nationalities and continents. Few tribal name synonyms were included. Ratings offered for communities included in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS) on childhood and adolescent “sexual restraint”, adolescent sexual expression and additional relevant subjects, are indicated if available. An overview of these data is offered as Appendix I of Thematic Volume II, and in Table I of the present Atlas Volume, together with additional ratings offered by Whiting and Child and De Leeuwe, as adapted from Ford and Beach. The time and geographic focus indicated for the SCCS are reprinted in Appendix B. In Appendix C, SCCS societies are presented by childhood sexual restraint “order”.
Drafts of both Volumes are web-available in PDF (0.1 ed.) format and htm (0.0 and 0.2 eds.), as linked from the Atlas Index page. Citation of this Volume is allowed when using equivalent formulations of the following:
Janssen, D. F.
(2002-4). Growing Up Sexually.
Volume I: World Reference Atlas.
To meet the longitudinal nature of the project, periodic updates will be scheduled, and recorded here. Omissions, specifications and corrections can be offered via:
July 2003; Appropriated September 2004
(back to Volume 1 index)
D. F., Growing Up Sexually.
Last revised: Oct. 2004
 Ploß, H. H. () Das Kind in Brauch und Sitte der Völker. 3rd rev. ed. by Ph. B. Renz.
Ford, C. S. (1945) A Comparative Study of Human Reproduction.
Graaf, H. de & Rademakers, J. (2003) Seks
in de Groei. Een verkennend onderzoek naar de (pre)seksuele ontwikkeling van
kinderen en jeugdigen.
 A brief historical appraisal of the academic analysis and use of ethnic developmental sexualities is offered in Vol. II
 See Vol. II
 Binnie, J. & Valentine, G. (1999) Geographies of sexuality- a review of progress, Progress in Human Geography 23,2:175-87
 Aitken, S. C. (2001) Geographies
of Young People: The Morally Contested Spaces of Identity.
 Having reviewed to some extent the relevant literature on “biological” representations of eroticism for the prepubertal case, I have found few arguments against an “adrenocentric” perspective.
 Including: eHRAF (http://www.yale.edu/hraf/index.html; also via http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/EthnoAtlas/ethno.html), JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org), etc. University websites; NCC via UL sites; AOI via http://www.lucy.ukc.ac.uk/AIO.html; ASC at http://asc.leidenuniv.nl/library/catalogues.htm; Francoeur’s International Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 1-3, 1997) via
http://www.sexarchive.info/IES/xmain.html; Focused Ethnographic Bibliography for the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample found at www.worldcultures.org/~drwhite/worldcul/SCCSbib.pdf; Medline athttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi; NISSO at http://www.nisso.nl/ndbnl.htm; Homodok Library at http://www.homodok.nl
 Taken from D. R. White, in World Cultures 2,1. Version prepared by William Divale, 2000.
 Particularly those in
 These include Africa Studies Center (Leiden); Royal Institute of Linguistics and Anthropology (Leiden); Dutch Institute for Near East Studies (NINO, Leiden)
 These include the Dr. Mr. E. Brongersma Collection (Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Seksualiteit), Dr. C. van Emde-Boas Collection (University of Amsterdam), Homodok Library (Amsterdam) and the NISSO library (Dutch Institute for Socio-Sexological Research, Utrecht).
 “[…] the person-class in the Bantu languages has, in the singular, the prefix mu- (sometimes umu- or omu-, and sometimes shortened into m-) and, in the plural, ba- (aba-, va-, ova-, a-). The prefix ama- or ma-, sometimes found with tribal names, belongs to a different class. It is probably a plural of multitude (or 'collective plural'), which has displaced the ordinary form”. Werner, A. (1933) Myths And Legends Of The Bantu [http://www.afrikaworld.net/afrel/mlb01.htm]
These ratings were left out in the present work.