The Sexual
Curriculum (Oct., 2002) [to
Volume
II Index] [to
Main
Index Page] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [I] [II] [III] [IV] Janssen, D. F. (Oct., 2002). Growing
Up Sexually. Volume II: The Sexual Curriculum: The Manufacture and
Performance of Pre-Adult Sexualities. Interim Report. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands I [next Appendix] Structural
Determinants of Sexual Curricula.
A Review and Critique of the
"Cross-Cultural Method"
Abstract: The following appendix
presents an overview of systematic cross-cultural studies investigating the
structural determination of the human sexual behaviour curriculum, together
with rough description of their conclusions as organised by a selected number
of entries to the problem. [For a more detailed
and complete analysis, the reader is referred to a preliminary overview[1]
and a separate bibliography not included in GUS]. The reason for this section being "appendicised"
reads that it covers "cultural" rather than individual experience, which falls
outside the project's scope. The first three entries explore the control of
sexual behaviour from within the macrocultural, sexological and pedagogical
frameworks. The last entry more descriptively covers the cross-cultural
patterns of (gender-specific) curriculum. A short summary and focal critique of
the cross-cultural method is followed by a challenging of its fundamental
operationalisation ("permissiveness" / "restraint"). Contents [up]
Structural
Determinants of Sexual Curricula. A Review
and Critique of the "Cross-Cultural Method" I.0.a Preliminary
Outline of Previous Systematisation Efforts I.0.b
Introduction: Structural Dimensions of the Early Sexual Experience I.1.1 Society:
"Complexity" and Substructures I.2.1
Confronting Essentialist Concepts of "Permissiveness" I.2.2 Construing Sexual Systems I.4 Curricular and
Curricularisation Frameworks I.4.1 Chronology and the Timing of Sexuality
Processes I.4.2 Continuity: Intracurricular Coherence I.4.3 Gender Informed Standard: Curricular
Consistency I.6 Major Limitations and Inaccuracies of the
Cross-Cultural Method I.7 Reconceptualising Sexual Control:
Cross-Cultural Method vs Becker I.0.a Preliminary Outline of Previous Systematisation Efforts [up] [Contents] Before
the current inventarisation (Table 1, #7), six major efforts (arranged
chronologically) have provided more or less systematic insights in the
cross-cultural patterning of sexual behaviour socialisation and development.
Efforts 1-5 have provided original (semi-)numeric measures, and all offered a
localisation of "sexuality" regulation practices within the larger culturalist
scope. Beside these efforts, minor, incidental descriptive contributions and
small collections of data have been offered. To anticipate on the review
offered infra, a number of interesting studies can now, but have not been,
reissued. A further discussion of the contribution of these resources is
provided in the next Appendix (see here). Table 1 Focussed Appraisal of Cross-Cultural Efforts in Developmental Sexology. Includes abbreviations used in the present article.(1) World Ethnographic Sample and Ethnographic Atlas measures of
Premarital Sexual Freedom (Murdock)[2]. Used by a number of authors[3] to test anthropological hypotheses. (2) (e)HRAF OCM coding 864 (1937-…). HRAF
provided a selected anthropological bibliography with page-specific references to
selected number of topics including "sex training" for a selected number of
societies. The HRAF selection of cultures was used by studies to gather
specific data[4]. eHRAF allows online, including
thematically (code) specific and fulltext, searches. (3) Ford
and Beach (F&B)[5]. Suggested a trichotomisation according to
permissiveness illustrated by a selection of descriptive material. The Ford and
Beach categorisation was used by Textor, Heise and DeLeeuwe to test
anthropological hypotheses. (4) Whiting
and Child (W&Ch.)[6]. Provided diverse ratings and
cross-correlations for a selected number of societies. The Whiting and Child
ratings were used in a number of studies[7] examining mainly psychodynamic and
anthropological hypotheses. (5) SCCS
rating studies (SCCS). Providing ratings and
selected cross-correlations for a standardised selection of 186 societies as
published in diverse studies[8]. Unpublished re-examinations have been
performed by Frayser, who earlier (1985)[9] provided a major work on cross-culturalist
sexology. SCCS ratings allow computerised statistical processing, facilitated
by CD-ROM availability. (6) Sections
in Francoeur's International Encyclopedia
of Sexuality[10]. Provided native sexologists' contemporary
reviews and insights on childhood/adolescent auto-, homo-, and heterosexuality
in a selected number of countries. Online available. (7) Janssen[11]. Provided an extensive literature review
using previous material (1-6) organised in (a) an ethno-/geographic
atlas, and (b) a thematic volume. Also
provided multi-entry bibliographic volume, and limited numeric interpretations
on the basis of SCCS material. Online available. I.0.b Introduction: Structural Dimensions of the Early Sexual Experience [up] [Contents] Scott et al. (1998:p692)[12]
suggested that "[t]he construction of childhood needs to be
understood at a number of different levels: the structural, the discursive and the
situated. Childhood is institutionalised through family, education and the
state, resulting in dependence on adults and exclusion from full participation
in adult society. Indeed, it can be argued that many aspects of childhood today
have been shaped through the structural and institutional changes of the last
two hundred years […]". Mostly explored
in the 1960s through 1980s, the contribution of what is referred to as the
"cross-cultural method" to the influx of hypothetical starting points for
descriptive elaboration today is considerable, as is concerned the sexological
study of the life span. The studies here identified embody what can be called a
"cross-culturalist" tradition, which supports the process of generating
explanatory curricula that identify the (macro-)structural "non-sexual" as
conditional, and conceptualise "sexuality" as a set of potentially dependent
variables or "functions". A subdivision of this tradition has operated from a
cross-cuturalist position that accomodates psychodynamic interpretation, which
broadly allows predictions that tend to relateralise early "psychosexual"
variables as conditional, and the adult-generated "cultural" as resultant. From
a conservative point of view, the legitimisation for this historical hybridisation
remains arguable. For historical
reasons, the data are organised according to three approved lines of approach
(culturalist, pedagogist, sexologist), and two approved lines of interest (life
phase and gender). This choice, of course, is arbitrary, and several
conclusions from one approach apply to others as well. Graphically, these
approaches locate "sexual developments" within what are appreciated as "larger
frameworks" of its effectuation or expression: the "cultural", the
"pedagogical" and the "sexual". The –ism qualifications here used refer
to the (variably obvious) tendency of essentialising these three peripheries or
backgrounds within which the sexual is to be centralised. Obviously,
the issue of culturalisation, pedagogisation and sexualisation of "sexual
development" processes, is as much an academic as a family-level pursuit. In
contemporary U.S. discourse, the sexual factor is heavily negotiated, the
pedagogical view is largely uncontestable, and the cultural entry is
progressively politicised within a global spectre. This last development
facilitates nationalist, regionalist and continentalist articulation of sexual
politics, but it has not been obvious how this would address early erotics,
beside female education, mobility, family planning, career building, AIDS
pevention, abuse prevention, and the distribution of associated prestige
factors. The
"cross-culturalist" approaches do not resist constructionist/performance based
ones, but are nonetheless less practical given the eventual choice of entry in
this volume, and were therefore relocated in this Appendix. I.1 Culturalist Framework [up] [Contents] These studies investigate sexual standards as the result
of some cultural meta-organisation. It is probable that findings tested for
monocultural validity explain a considerable proportion of the variance
encountered cross-culturally, but generally these two fields have somewhat
restricted themselves to their own set of variables, excepting bi- or
oligocultural comparisons. There does not seem to be a general significant
correlation between regionality and any of the "sexual restraint" measures,
except a marginal one for late girlhood (SCCS 200x333, Pearson 2-tailed, 0.05
level). Theoretically, cultural positions toward sexuality are
controlled by their ways of organising the curricular interplay of three
concepts: (a) virginity, (b) pregnancy and (c) institutional pairbonding. This
places high levels of salience on both the position and contribution of females
in reproductive matters as well as the wider social context. Also, it suggests
an important role for religious "doctrines", though not immediately apparent
for all matters premarital. Still: "[…]
whatever is said about childhood sexuality in religious doctrines is,
invariably, subordinate to and derived from the broader context of adult
beliefs and values which focus on the pivotal adult sexual relationship,
marriage" (Francoeur)[13]. Marriage type indeed seems to be correlated with
global cultural traits, but only indirectly to normative traits including sex
taboos (premarital, post-partum)[14].
A backdraw of the cross-cultural codes, however, may be that they do not
examine the diverse aspects of what is globally indicated by the phrase
"premarital liberty"[15].
An overview of cross-cultural studies was provided by Broude (1981)[16].
I.1.1 Society: "Complexity" and Substructures [up] [Contents] One
might hypothesize that when the cultural structure of "fertility" (the level
reproduction) roughly coincides with the cultural structure of sexual
trajectory legitimisation (as far as postmarital fertility is concerned), such
legitimacy will relate to what is known as the demographic transition
model. This would predict a surplus of legitimacy (freedom of expression) in
societies experiencing the first two demographic phases (characterised by high
birth rate and high or dropping death rate) as compared with societies
experiencing subsequent (fourth, fifth) stages being characterised by low birth
rate (and low death rate). This obviously problematic entry is corrupted by a
range of factors including triumphing reproduction technology, factually emancipating
postpubertal sexual trajectories from reproductive trajectories, and the wider
bureaucratic and discursive dissociation of these two human agendas,
particularly governed by the institutionalisation of the "sexual" within the
economic and reproductive unit of the household. More significantly, the
age-old "freedom" and legitimacy question of human sexuality traditionally has
addressed the pre-institutional more centrally than the extra-institutional
experience; and also the fertile experience more centrally than the prefertile.
Among
the first to speculate on interrelations between economic status and premarital
freedom, or promiscuity,
were Westermarck, Wikman and Malinowski[17].
Using premarital standards as a starting point, Murdock (1964)[18]
published "suggestive" but not statistically verified associations with
subsistence economy, technology, demography, and political organisation. Data
"suggested" that "[…] norms of premarital sex behavior tend to become
progressively more restrictive with an increase in cultural complexity, however
the latter may be measured" (p409)[19].
An alike finding was arrived at by Levinson and Malone (as cited by Hotvedt)[20],
Stephens (as cited by Naroll)[21],
and by Broude (1975)[22]
using a previously unpublished measure of premarital freedom. Regression
analysis by Broude showed that high (or low) accessibility of caretakers for children is strongly associated
with permissiveness toward premarital sex (or restrictiveness), as is SSA
(W&Ch.). Broude finds that class stratification
and cultural complexity[23] are also significant predictors,
indicating that restrictiveness has different origins in different social
contexts[24]. This is
not surprising since the diversity of native explanations for restrictiveness
would lead to the expectation that no one social structural or psychological
factor will explain norms of premarital sexual behaviour in all societies.
These three predictors account for only 33% of the total variance, showing that
studies of restrictiveness have not isolated all the reasons for premarital
sexual behaviour. Somewhat
contrary to these findings, De Leeuwe found that both factors (male) "internal
oppression" (composed of class/caste distinction, and presence of slavery) and
development of production forces (subsistence) predicted a higher (moral, not
factual) tolerance for selected categories of sexual activity lumped together
(which may not appear to be interrelated; p11), including pre-adult sexuality
(F&B). Testing
subcultural structures, Goethals[25]
had pointed out a significant relationship with residence and descent rules,
which was tentatively explained by the degree with which premarital pregnancy
disrupts personal, familial and social cohesion. Unpublished material by the
author established the influence of status (ascribed vs. achieved), and
explored the issue of bride price (which proved nonsignificant) (as cited by
Broude). Eckhardt[26]
further used earlier measures of premarital sex to test some basic hypotheses concerning the association of sexual
permissiveness and the distribution of power and other social resources.
Factors tested included rule of descent, rule of residence, female subsistence
contribution, and level of courting autonomy. Data modestly suggested the
following idea: "[…] sex is an exchange good offered by females and
controlled by males for advancing self-interest. The nature of the controls
exercized by males as prospective spouses or as women's kin, in conjunction
with sex drives, determines the level of sexual permissiveness in society"
(p11-2). Confirming previous
findings, SCCS data (Barry III et al., 1976:p105) suggested that late childhood
sexual restraint for both sexes progressively increased with the level of
political integration[27],
a correlation greater for girls [SCCS v330-3,
329-30x149-158].
Correlation analysis (Barry III and Schlegel, 1986) shows that adolescent
sexual freedom was low in societies with the highest level of social
stratification and intensive agriculture. High degrees of sexual freedom were
associated with several customs within specific categories of societies: with
initiation ceremony for adolescents of either sex in highly socially
stratified, mostly intensive agricultural, societies (positive, p<.05), female initiation in
nonagricultural societies (negative, p<.05),
exogamy in less socially stratified intensive agricultural societies (positive,
p<.01), matrilineal descent in
horticultural societies (positive, p<.01),
and monogamy in nonagricultural (simplex) societies (negative, p<.05). For the total of societies
(but for none of the specific subcategories), community size was negatively
associated with sexual freedom (p<.01).
In a 1969 study by Zern[28],
a cross-cultural sample of linguistically independent and geographically
separate societies was rated on degree of group cohesiveness (with items such
as presence or absence of localised clans, lineage systems, and extended family
residence patterns), and values and norms describing premarital sexual
behaviour. The more cohesive family units placed more restrictions on
premarital sexual behaviour; there was no relationship between family structure
and norms. I.1.2 Female Status and Role [up] [Contents] Using
1982 SCCS ratings, it was found that where girls are being trained for high
future contribution, they are significantly less likely to be sexually
restrained (p=.034, later childhood)
(Schlegel and Barry III, 1986:p146)[29]
[SCCS v733-8/821-6x v330-3]. Also, premarital permissiveness characterised
societies with high female contribution to subsistence (ibid., p147). I.2 Sexological Framework [up] [Contents] I.2.1 Confronting Essentialist Concepts of "Permissiveness" [up] [Contents] The
sexological approach aims to analyse patterns of attitudes toward distinct
categories of sexual behaviour. Cross-culturally speaking, the
operationalisation of sexuality according to the reproductive principle is
potentially the most informative. Frayser[30]
suggests that the degree to which reproductive
and sexual [nonreproductive]
relationships are allowed to coexist varies according to cultural definition
and social arrangement. Both male and female options for reproductive success
must be examined. Frayser (1989) did not rule out that it may be possible to
reduce all of the attributes of sexual relationships to reproductive ends. The
"cultural fit" of the sexual within the reproductive can be studied at various
levels, most notably the intrafamilial (intergenerational), dyadic, and, more
problematic, "individual". Challenging
the simplex notion that a permissive-nonpermissive dichotomy, or any
"permissiveness" scale, is sufficient to describe variations across countries,
Widmer et al. (1998)[31]
examined the hypothesis that there are distinctive sexual regimes with
different moral standards depending on the type of sexual behaviour. Attitudes
toward premarital sex, teenage sex, extramarital sex, and homosexual sex were
examined in a selection of 24 countries. Cluster analysis reveals that there
are six groupings of nations which have alike "moral standards". However, a
variance decomposition analysis also shows that all countries included in the
sample share relatively similar attitudes toward nonmarital sex. I.2.2 Construing Sexual Systems [up] [Contents] A
specifically interesting question is whether there is a relation between
attitudes toward phase-specified activities (or all activities of
phase-specified participants of the sexual system). Stephens' work on
modesty/obscenity produced the tentative division of two "sex-restriction"
factors, with some degree of mutual exclusion cross-culturally: (1) "taboo",
including kin avoidances, menses and birth-related taboos, and a variety of
"occasional" taboos; and (2) "modesty-chastity", including [not specifically
curricularised] clothing[32]/conversational
explicitness ("modesty"), extramarital
liberty and, speculatively (1972:p13)[33],
sex training (acc. W&Ch)[34].
Minturn et al. (1969)[35]
further published correlations of sexual satisfaction potential (SSP) and
sexual socialisation anxiety (SSA; both W&Ch) with a number of sexual
beliefs and practices in 135 HRAF societies. SSA was found to be associated
with adolescent sex segregation[36]
(p<.01); this was weak for SSP (p<.10). Textor had earlier found good
correlations between SSP/SSA and premarital (but not with extramarital) "permissiveness" in the expected
directions (Textor, 305/311x390-3; replicated by Broude, 1975), thus
compromising Stephen's second cluster. This was also suggested by SCCS data
(Barry III et al., 1976:p101, 102). On the other hand, sexual permissiveness
(F&B) was not correlated with premarital but indeed with extamarital
freedom (Textor, 386x392-3)! As suggested by these incongruencies, an important
finding is the noncorrelation of the concepts SSA (W&Ch.) and
restrictiveness (F&B) (Textor 311x386 e.v.v). This may be due to the use of
alternative sources, or suggest a genuine curricular phenomenon. Measures of
extramarital liberties (SCCS 169,597,598,963,964) tend to correlate better with the
female adolescent rather than male "adolescent" case. SSA
and SSP were significantly (negatively) correlated (Textor 305x311 e.v.v.).
Adolescent sexual freedom (expression plus "nonrestraint") appears to be well
correlated to previous phase-blind ratings of premarital sex (frequency, norms
and attitudes) (B&Schl, 1984:p327-8), and also with sexual restraint of
both preceding phases. De Leeuwe found that the permission regarding "sexual
activity of children" (adapt. F&B) and that regarding homosexual activity
of persons other than children (adapt. F&B) were uncorrelated; Textor had
earlier found a negative correlation using W&Ch data (SSP). "Children"'s
presence during sexual activity or sex talk of older people was present in the
most permissive societies more often than in the most prohibiting societies. Many more correlations can be calculated using SCCS
data (corrected, 2002). This study awaits future efforts, especially using SCCS
data offered in SPSS format. I.3 Pedagogical Framework [up] [Contents] These studies investigate sexual standards as the
implicated within some pedagogical situation or system that anticipates is
co-occurs with the expression of and socialisation of "the sexual impulse".
Selected writings suggest that the subjective use of rationale in sexual
behaviour socialisation may be a poorly developed variable[37].
Exactly how "sex" fits in the grand scheme of shaping the child's behaviour is
open for much conjecture. Lancy (2002)[38]
suggested that "[…] the benefits of play to children must be extensive and
profound in order to overcome [the] pervasive attempts at restraint" of such
play. The application of this in the sexological sphere would depend on whether
pedagogues operationalise early sexuality as "play". The "problem" entry seems to have been an informing
method[39],
but this operationalisation of salience is open for debate; cultural
definitions, for instance, may manipulate the notion of cross-cultural
variability. Ford and Beach's classical trichotomisation of cultural
permissiveness patterns was rightly[40]
expanded by a fourth, "supportive" dimension by Currier in the late 1970s. A
visual representation of world-wide severity ratings specified for the three
phases according to SCCS ratings, points out that "sexual restraint" severity in the ethnographic sample can indeed
globally be identified by means of a three-point scale (corresponding with two,
three and four on the original five point scale), thus supporting Ford and
Beach's original classification. This roughly applies to all gender/phase
configurations, though in some it is less apparent than in others. However, one
should consider a rater's or even observer's bias in this respect, and,
obviously, the choice of measure. An earlier general permissiveness rating (SCCS v465-8), for what it is worth,
does not provide for an obvious di- or trichotomisation cross-culturally.
Still, there appears to be a significant (p<.01) correlation of sexual and
general retraint measures in all four gender/phase cells. I.3.1
Sex and Pedagogy [up] [Contents]
An analysis of interrelations among training categories
by Whiting and Child (p115-8) revealed that, while systems were "almost
entirely independent", there was a very high positive relation between the age
of socialisation for modesty and heterosexual training. Prothro elaborated on this issue by using Whiting and Child's data
for a factor analysis. One polarity described an inverse association of "oral"
and "sexual" permissiveness. This was tentatively approached via (1)
psychodynamic arguments; and (2) maternal attitudes allowing that sex and suckling
are alternative means of gratification. Factor analysis by Broude and Green (1976) on the
basis of SCCS data suggests that sexual restraint can be grouped together with
"Obedience" and "Self-Restraint" into a category labelled "Submission"; there
was little correlation with any of the other categories (demands of toughness,
maturity and dutifulness) for either sex. Textor further found significant correlations of both
SSA (positive) and SSP (negative) with average socialisation anxiety and with
aggression socialisation anxiety (vide 305x308, 305x313, 311x308, 311x313).
Barry III et al. (1977:p228) correlated SSA (W&Ch.) with their measures on
general permissiveness (N=33) and
affection (N=29). Correlations with
permissiveness produced scores of r=-.50 (girls, early childhood) to -.56
(boys, early childhood). Looking at SR vs. Permissiveness transitions from
early to late childhood, however, a considerable number of cases suggest an
inverse, or at least not a parallel, pattern. Also, two in three societies
apply in their sexual restraint a gender principle to some degree consistent
with the general pedagogical application in early childhood. This figure drops
to just over half in late childhood. 34% (early childhood) and 42% (late
childhood) of cultures apply some type of curriculum suggesting that the choice
for the sexological policy (DS or no DS) stands out against (but is not
contrary to) the general pedagogical background of permissiveness. I.3.2 Double Standard: Pedagogical Consistency [up] [Contents]
The organisation of a double standard in sexual
permissiveness is most effective when curricularly consistent with general
permissiveness, that is "atraumatic". Ninety-one of 138 of known early
childhood cases are consistent in their standard (either no DS of any kind or
boys more lenient sexually as well as generally). 77 of 144 known late
childhood cases are consistent in their standard (either none of any kind or
boys more lenient sexually as well as generally); seven patterns[41]
are contrary to expectation (A/-A, -A/A). While the hypothesis is met for early
childhood better as for late childhood, for a remarkable minority of societies
with SR DS type A (boys more lenient) it could be considered consistent with a
generalised pedagogical principle. I.4 Curricular and Curricularisation Frameworks [up] [Contents] I.4.1 Chronology and the Timing of Sexuality Processes [up] [Contents] Specific
timing data for sexual socialisation practices are rare, but depend on the
variables chosen. Invariably, the whole concept of timing in psychosexual
development/socialisation is debatable regarding the measures under
examination. Whiting and Child could rate the "age at beginning of [serious] training in heterosexual play
inhibition" only for 17 of 75 HRAF societies; the age of initial "serious"
"modesty training" could be established for 19 societies (25%). "Sexual
satisfaction potential"
(SSP) could only be rated for 17 societies in the case of "masturbation", for
26 in the case of "heterosexual play", and for a further, unidentified small
amount in the case of "homosexual" (same-sex) behaviour. Specific
timing data are not established for the SCCS, this being explained by their
earliest phase apparently already universally being characterised by some
measurable form of "sexual (non-)restraint"[42].
In
the interesting study by Rogoff et al., examining timing structures in a
selection of 50 HRAF cultures, 22 could be rated for "considered sexual" ("The
age when the child is considered capable of sexual activity and stimulation, or
when this behavior is bound by the taboos of the culture"), 18 for "stressing
sexual attractiveness" ("The culture encourages the child to be concerned with
sexual attractiveness in clothing, self-decoration, hair-styling, personal
cleanliness"), and 30 for "stressing sex differentiation". Studies also reveal
large differences in the measurability of timing of relatively unambiguous
variables[43]. I.4.2 Continuity: Intracurricular Coherence [up] [Contents] Benedict
(1938:p164-5)[44] stated that
"[c]ontinuity in sex expression means […] that the child is taught nothing it
must unlearn later"[45].
Apart from the number of (contradicting) insights pertaining to curricular
continuity are presented under the heading "sexological framework", Heise
tested five major hypotheses on their ability to correctly identify occurring
from nonoccurring patterns of phase-specified sexual restraint, three of these
being found promising. Homogenisating material from three sources (F&B,
W&Ch., Textor), four hypotheses were further tested on their ability to
predict the frequency of pattern occurrence. Neither normative consistency or normative
continuity were found necessary conditions for occurring sex socialisation
patterns. Strong arguments could be made for (1) the adolescent strain
hypothesis (occurring socialisation in adolescence at least as permissive as
childhood); (2) inhibitions imitation hypothesis (occurring shifts toward
permissiveness rare and not extreme); (3) a combination of both latter
hypotheses. To
anticipate on a tentative retest, some basic inaccuracies[46]
in the SCCS ratings render the argument on curriculum continuity on the basis
of this quantitative material rather limited, as for, for example, the question
whether a long early childhood is met with less severe restraint than a short
one, or whether a (consequentially) short late childhood is met with more
severe restraint than a long one. Due to timing variability, it is not clear
how obvious psychosexual discontinuities (initiation, communal residence,
marriage) enter (or in fact define)
the phase schema; in other cases the factual organisation of transitions remain
altogether unclear. Rather than phase ratings, transitional ratings should have
been offered. Globalised
sexual restraint ratings as well as SDs
increase for every next phase regardless of gender, but, strictly, this was not
tested for significance. Also, some contamination occurred with the distinction
of late childhood with adolescence, and rating procedures were not exactly
alike for preadolescent versus adolescent phases (B&Sch, 1984:p324, 325).
Adolescent freedom was well correlated with childhood sexual restraint (better
for later childhood), predictably as a function of general cultural
differentiation from both "phases"[47].
Only in two societies there was a less severe restraint (that is, greater SNR)
in late versus early childhood; both societies were again more restrictive in
adolescence. A considerable number of societies, however, go against the
general tendency of more severe restraint in adolescence as opposed to late
childhood. This global negative phase effect is not seen for at least one of
both genders in a total number of 70 societies, which almost approaches half of
the societies for which male adolescent sexual freedom could be measured
(#=150). In more than half of these, both sexes are met with less severe
restraint. Judging
from a reexamination of SCCS findings on curricular organisation of sexual
restraint, the most frequent patterns include gender-egalitarian maximum in
late childhood, and that of progressive restriction. Curricular patterns are
consistent for gender in 63% of examined cases. Transitions between adjacent
phases differ in severity from –5 to 6 on a theoretical –10 to 10 scale,
weighted means varying from 0.19 to 1.40. Some support was found for Heise's adolescent strain hypothesis, predicting
that SR in adolescence is at least as permissive as childhood (tested for later
childhood/adolescence transition). Another
aspect of curricularisation continuity is represented by the sexological
implications of ceremonial initiation. It is suggested that puberty rites
function generally to provide intensive instruction in adult sex roles, instil
cultural loyalty, regulate and publicise the attainment of adult status, and
enhance the mate value of the initiate (Weisfeld, 1997)[48];
as such the timing would tend to following biological principles (p45-7)[49].
Schegel and Barry III (1979) found that in 13 of 63 SCCS societies (»1/5) practicing these
ceremonies for boys, it is "intended for or clearly results in the initiation
of [hetero]sexual relations". This is the case for 28 of 84 societies (1/3)
practising such ceremonies for girls. Of both boy and girl cases, ceremonies
are held as early as "before genital maturation"[50]
but, in the case of girls, mostly "at" genital maturation, which would be at
the occasion of menarche or ejacularche [51].
Sexual permissiveness (F&B) does not seem to be related with the presence
of female initiation rites (Textor 386x382). Likewise, Barry and Schlegel (1984) failed to find a significant
interaction between degree of childhood-adolescence continuity and restraint
severity (SCCS). I.4.3 Gender Informed Standard: Curricular Consistency [up] [Contents] Judging from a reexamination of SCCS
material, double standards are encountered in late childhood more than before
or after, but not for more than half of societies. More leniency for girls is
very rare. Apart from the typical curricularly consistent pattern of
egalitarianism, most frequent patterns include that of dissolution of a
previous double standard at adolescence (N=20),
and that of a temporary double standard for late childhood only (N=19). The only minor though significant
alternative patterns describe either an adolescent
onset, or a late childhood onset
double standard. Less than half of societies are consistent, in only two
curricula are contrary to expected consistency. Of the societies applying some
degree of double standard in any phase, only 11% is wholly curricularly
consistent. The strength of the double standard varies from –2 to 8 on a
theoretical –10 to 10 scale, the weighted mean varying between 0.47 to 0.86.
Extramarital and adolescent double standards are in agreement for 39% of examinable
societies, and in only 9 of 71 societies (13%) applying some form of double
standard for either "phase". This suggests that when addressing double
standards, one should at least specify the type of sexual behaviour measured
and the phase under investigation. I.5 Interim Conclusions [up] [Contents] Interpreted
within the numeric, narrowly unilateral and only indefinitely curricular
definition of sexual permissiveness, this attitude seems to be related to
societal complexity, as well as to various subcultural economic and political
dimensions; in fact, it seems to be a combination of global social structural
parameters and subsocietal organisations that predict sexual restrictiveness. A
number of authors have tried to fit these findings in models that attempt to
cover all or most societies under investigation. Within the sexual behaviour
system, curricular coherence is generally
found, while selected other variables appear to be consistent with such
curricular system, though not unambiguously so. As a whole, the description of
the system of motives vs (curricular) sexual behaviour categories lacks a
coherent framework. Based on numeric material, it does not directly seem to fit
into some coherent pedagogical system. I.6 Major Limitations and Inaccuracies of the Cross-Cultural Method [up] [Contents] As is concerned the anthropology of life phase
sexualities, a number of arguments can readily be made contra the
cross-cultural method, most of them extendable to alternative subjects. Among
these: 1. Conceptual
reductionism. Nummerification does nothing to prevent a simplex concept of
sexual socialisation patterns. Instead, the current study points out that the
comparability thus created is fraud with the loss of vital insights to the
matter. 2.
Definitions. "Permissiveness" does not unambiguously address regulation dynamics.
Further, permissiveness cannot solely be represented by ad hoc attitudes and practices, instead should be informed by ante hoc and post hoc dynamics as well. 3. Scales.
Unidirectional scales do not permit cultural juxtaposition (rather than comparison). 4.
Theoretical baseline. Most studies, interpreters and reviewers embrace
structural-functional theories. This renders its conclusions less useful for or
of less immediate applicability in alternative, say, constructionist or poststructural
approaches. 5.
Curricularity and developmentalist / "curricularist" essentialism. Variables
are either dissociated from curricular implications, or resulting from
inconsiderate application of curricular operationalisations. Further,
presentations do not confront reductionist and essentialist ideologies
concerning curricula and curricularisation processes. 6.
"Behaviourist" essentialism. Variables describe behavioural measures lifted
from an attitudinal and psychomental context. 7.
Culturalist essentialism. Cultures tend to be represented as static uniform
structures, according to limited, individual and at times morally biased
casuistics. Intracultural, mircogeographic, (micro-)historical and
interindividual variability are not represented. 8. Disregard
for methodological (e.g., historical) standards and lumping of methodological
approaches. Especially in older material, these are indeed variable and rarely
accounted for. In
broad terms, numeric cross-culturalists have reduced cultures and sexuality
(hence, possible notions of "sexual cultures") beyond the level required for
what I believe connotes qualitative understanding. This has "produced"
comparability and divergence inherent to methodology rather than suggestive of
qualitative similarity or dissimilarity. By its definitions, the use SCCS in
sexological categorisation has introduced an occidentalist bias that
monolaterally issues sexuality as dominated by individualist concepts of
liberalism, and, paradoxically, a distinctly Marxist concept of the family. I.7 Reconceptualising Sexual Control: Cross-Cultural Method vs. Becker [up] [Contents] The concept of "control" in sexual
socialisation is a function on the theoretical presuppositions. Within a
symbolic interactionist perspective, such terms as "control" are replaced by
"manufacture" or "creation" (Gagnon, 1977:p82)[52].
Rethinking S. Freud's imagery of an irremediable antagonism between sex and
society on the grounds that sexual repression is necessary to counteract social
contraction and its dysfunctional effects, Becker[53]
formulated a framework of two ideal-typical sexual orientations and utilised it
to select societies approximating some configuration of sex-promoting and
sex-inhibiting definitions on one hand, and of the tendency to actively
intervene in sexual lives on the other. Organising this within a four-cell
matrix, cultural configurations could be demonstrated using the examples of the
"sex-negative" Manus, the "sex-positive" Mangaians, the "sex-neutral" Ik (East
Africa), and the "sex-ambivalent" Americans [U.S.]. Examination of these
societies, with particular attention to the relationship between sexual orientation
and the tendency either to "contract" toward individualistic sexual
consumption, or "expand" toward co-operative social relations, leads to the
conclusion that sex "regulation" for the purpose posited by Freud (expansion)
is not confined to sexual repression,
but may also take place in the context of "sexual permissiveness". In other words, "[t]he issue is not whether a
society represses or fails to repress sex, but whether it avoids the potential
hazard of nonregulation", that is, of an indifferent, "neutral" attitude. A
matter unexplored by Becker is that of socialisation, or perhaps anticipation,
or continuity. Becker addressed an important
issue not adequately represented in the cross-culturalist tradition, and more
authors have taken an alike stance at a monocultural level. Thorogood[54]
argues that "[…] sex education, as any education, does not take place in a
neutral environment. It is always about the transmission of values and by implication
acts as a form of control. This is most clear in the traditional, "restricted
information" approach, which uses the twin bases of "objective scientific fact" and "moral frameworks" to achieve the
"sexual socialisation of young people" […]". Even acts of rendering
"alternative" forms of experience valid and visible simultaneously also
construct them as "sites for monitoring and regulation, as the objects of
disciplinary power". Thus, "[l]iberal pluralist "empowerment" models of sex
education have the unintended consequence of producing micro-techniques of
power and are not unequivocally liberating or resisting". Not cited by
Thorogood, Monk[55] previously
had sets out to demonstrate how sex education programmes are "deployed to
govern [teenage] sexuality" by problematising its interactional identity. On the basis of the presented examples it would be an
obvious choice to try and view cross-generational attitudes and control
measures as creating continuous sexual curricula on the basis of proscriptive and prescriptive principles, producing positive, negative, neutral or
ambivalent ways of growing up sexually, and of socialising adjacent
generations. This requires a study of the inherent vertical stratification in
the formation of sexual sub- and countercultures between generations, that is,
the issue of operationalising authority, and a curricular system. A numeric elaboration of Becker's hypothesis seems
compromised by the fact that sexual attitudes are measured via an (inverted)
negative definition only: there is no (SCCS or any standardised cross-cultural)
measure describing antithetical
positions toward sexual behaviour. The present study, however, offers some
semi-quantitative material. Operationalising measures for the cross-cultural
study of sexual permissiveness revolves around the issue of measuring the same
thing in cultures where it isn't the same thing[56].
A cross-cultural examination of the cultural factors that predict
regulation/nonregulation choices probably reveals differences in phases of life
and categories of behaviour which would compromise any monolithic concept. I.8 Perspectives [up] [Contents] A
conclusion that could be anticipated, neither any single entry or level of
analysis will be able to explain the total variance of cultural attitudes
toward sexological phases. The literature suggests an interplay of pedagogical,
sexological and otherwise curricular dynamics, which make a particular activist
curriculum seem logical. Notes [up] [Contents] [Last Updated] [2]
Westbrook, J. T. (1963) Norms of premarital sex behavior, Ethnology 2:109-33. The measure was later incorporated in Murdock,
G. P. (1967) Ethnographic Atlas.
Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press; Murdock, G. P. (1964) Cultural
correlates of the regulation of premarital sexual behavior, in Manners, R. A.
(Ed.) Process and Pattern in Culture:
Essays in Honor of Julian Steward.
Chicago: Aldine, p399-410; Eckhardt, K. W.
(1971) Echange theory and sexual permissiveness, Behav Sci Notes 6:1-18 [3]
Broude, G. J. & Greene, S. J. (1976) Cross-cultural codes on twenty sexual
attitudes and practices, Ethnology
5,4:409-29; De Leeuwe, J. (1970) Society system and sexual life, Bijdr Taal- Land- & Volkenk
126:1-36. Said to be based on an unpublished manuscript Maatschappijvorm en Seksualiteit. [4] Rogoff, B. et al. (1975)
Age of assignment of roles and responsibilities to children: A cross-cultural
survey, Hum Developm 18,5:353-69;
Minturn, L., Grosse, M. & Haider, S. (1969) Cultural patterning of sexual
beliefs and behavior, Ethnology
8,3:301-18 [5]
Ford, C. S. & Beach, F. A. (1951) Patterns
of Sexual Behavior. New York: Paul J. Hoeber, Inc., p167-98 [6]
Whiting, J. & Child, I. (1953) Child
Training and Personality: A Cross-Cultural Study. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press [7]
Whiting, J. W. M. (1967) Sorcery, sin, and the superego: cross-cultural study
of some mechanisms, in Ford, C. S. (Ed.) Cross-Cultural
Approaches. New Haven: HRAF Press, p147-68. Orig. in Jones, M. R. (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (1959).
Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, p174-95; Prothro, E. T. (1960) Patterns of permissiveness among preliterate
peoples, J Abnorm & Soc Psychol
61,1:151-4; Roberts, J. M. (1962) Child training and game involvement, Ethnology 1:166-85; Stephens, W. N.
(1962) The Oedipus Complex:
Cross-Cultural Evidence. Free Press of Glencoe; Stephens, W. N. (1967) A
cross-cultural study of menstrual taboos, in Ford, C. S. (Ed.) Cross-Cultural Approaches. New Haven:
HRAF Press, p67-94. Critical conclusions excepted in Price-Williams, D. R.
(Ed., 1969) Cross-Cultural Studies.
Middlesex: Penguin, p338-42; Shirley, R. W. & Romney, A. K. (1962) Love
magic and socialization anxiety, Am
Anthropol 64:1028-31; Ayres, B. (1967) Pregnancy magic: a study of food
taboos and sex avoidances, in Ford, C. S. (Ed.) Cross-Cultural Approaches. New Haven: HRAF Press, p111-25; Heise,
D. R. (1962) Socio-cultural Correlates of
Sex Behavior: A Cross-Cultural Study. Unpublished Master's paper, Dept. of
Sociology, University of Chicago; Heise, D. R. (1967) Cultural Patterning of
Sexual Socialization, Am Sociol Rev
32,5:726-39; Spiro, M. E. & D'Andrade, R. G. (1967) A cross-cultural study
of some supernatural beliefs, Am
Anthropol 60:456-66. Reprinted in Ford, C. S. (Ed.) Cross-Cultural Approaches. New Haven: HRAF Press, p196-206; Textor,
R. B. (1967) A Cross-Cultural Summary.
New Haven: HRAF Press; Allen, M. G. (1967) Childhood experience and adult
personality: a cross-cultural study using the concept of ego strength, J Soc Psychol 71,1:53-68; Minturn, L.,
Grosse, M. & Haider, S. (1969) Cultural patterning of sexual beliefs and
behavior, Ethnology 8,3:301-18;
Barry, H. III, Josephson, L., Lauer, E. & Marshall, C. (1977) Agents and
Techniques for Child Training: Cross-Cultural Codes 6, Ethnology 16:191-230 [8]
Barry, H. III & Paxson, L.M. (1971) Infancy and early childhood:
cross-cultural codes 2, Ethnology
10:466-508; Broude, G. J. & Greene, S. J. (1976) Cross-cultural codes on
twenty sexual attitudes and practices, Ethnology
5,4:409-29; Barry, H. III, Josephson, E. et al. (1976) Traits inculcated in
childhood: cross-cultural codes 5, Ethnology
15:83-114. Codes are reprinted in Barry III, H. & Schlegel, A. (Eds., 1980)
Cross-Cultural Codes and Samples.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; Schlegel, A. & Barry III, H. (1979) Adolescent
initiation ceremonies: a cross-cultural code, Ethnology 18,2:199-210. Reprinted in Barry,
H. III & Schlegel, A. (Eds.) Cross-Cultural
Samples and Codes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittburgh Press, p277-88; Barry, H. III &
Schlegel, A. (1984) Measurements of adolescent sexual behavior in the standard
sample of societies, Ethnology
23,4:315-29; Barry, H. III & Schlegel, A. (1986) Cultural Customs That
Influence Sexual Freedom in Adolescence, Ethnology
25,2:151-62. See also Schlegel, A. & Barry III, H. (1991) Adolescence. New York, N.Y.: The Free
Press, p167-9 [9]
Frayser, S. G. (1985) Varieties of Sexual
Experience: An Anthropological Perspective on Human Sexuality. New Haven:
HRAF Press [10]
Francoeur, R. T. (1997, 2001) The
International Encyclopedia of Sexuality. New York: Continuum. 3 vols.
published in 1997, 4th vol. in 2001. Three volumes available online, 4th to be
available online in 2002. [11]
Current project, covering Atlas and Subject Volumes. [12]
Scott, S., Jackson, S. & Backett-Milburn, K. (1998) Swings and Roundabouts:
Risk Anxiety and the Everyday Worlds of Children, Sociology 32,4:689-705 [13]
Francoeur, R. T. (1990) Current religious doctrines of sexual and erotic
development in childhood, in Money, J. & Musaph, H. (Eds.) Handbook of Sexology, Vol VII. Amsterdam
[etc.]: Elsevier, p81-112. Cf. Francoeur, R. T. (1994) Religion and sexuality,
in Bullough, V. L. & Bullough, B. (Eds.) Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia. New York & London: Garland
Publ. Inc. [14]
Osmond, M. W. (1965) Toward Monogamy: A Cross-Cultural Study of Correlates of
Type of Marriage, Social Forces
44,1:8-16, see p14 [15]
Christensen, H. T. & Carpenter, G. R. (1962a) Timing Patterns in the
Development of Sexual Intimacy: An Attitudinal Report on Three Modern Western
Societies, Marr Fam Living 24,1:30-5;
Christensen, H. T. & Carpenter, G. R. (1962b) Value-Behavior Discrepancies
Regarding Premarital Coitus in Three Western Cultures, Am Sociol Rev 27,1:66-74; Christensen, H. T. (1960) Cultural
Relativism and Premarital Sex Norms, Am
Sociol Rev 25,1:31-9 [16]
Broude, G. (1981) The
cultural management of sexuality, in Munroe, R. L., Munroe, R. & Whiting,
B. (Eds.) Handbook of Cross-Cultural
Human Development. New York: Garland STPM, p633-73 [17]
Cf. Günther, H. F. K. (1943) De Geschiedenis van het Huwelijk.
Amsterdam: Roskam, p82-93 [18]
Murdock, G. P. (1964) Cultural correlates of the regulation of premarital
sexual behavior, in Manners, R. A. (Ed.) Process
and Pattern in Culture: Essays in
Honor of Julian Steward. Chicago: Aldine, p399-410 [19]
Cf. Caputo, G. C. (1974) A cross-cultural analysis of sexual restrictions and
cultural complexity, DAI 34(11-B): 5647-8 [20]
Levinson, D. & Malone, M. J. (1980) Toward
Explaining Human Culture. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press; Hotvedt, M. E. (1990) Emerging
and submerging adolescent sexuality: culture and sexual orientation, in
Bancroft, J. & Reinisch, J. M. (Eds.) Adolescence
and Puberty. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, p154-72, at p
163 [21]
Stephens, W. N. (1972) A cross-cultural study of modesty, Behav Sci Notes 7,1:1-28, at p11f, Table 3, Columns 8 and 10. Cited
by Naroll, R. (1983) The Moral Order.
Beverly Hills [etc.]: SAGE, p345, 347. [22]
Broude, G. J. (1975) Norms of premarital sexual behavior, Ethos 3:381-402 [23]
Composite score by Murdock. [24]
It was hypothesized that if inaccessibility of the mother or caretaker is an
important antecedent of anxiety about attachment, then a high association would
be found between accessibility and norms of premarital sexual behaviour across cultures.
Only SSA and accessibility of caretakers predict premarital sex norms at an
acceptable level of significance, as the relation with five other measures of
sex anxiety proved nonsignificant (display of affection, age and style of
independence training, age of weaning, and diffusion of nurturance). Regression
analysis determined that accessibility of caretakers accounts for .23 of the
variance, class stratification accounts for .046 of the variance, and cultural
complexity accounts for .027 of the variance. [25]
Goethals, G. W. ([1971]) Factors affecting rules regarding premarital sex, in
Henslin, J. M. & Sagarin, E. (Eds.) Studies
in the Sociology of Sex. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1978 rev. ed.,
p41-58 [26]
Op.cit. [27]
Murdock, G. P. & Provost, C. (1973) Measurement of cultural complexity, Ethnology 12:379-92 [28]
Zern, D. (1969) The relevance of family cohesiveness as a determinant of
premarital sexual behavior in a cross-cultural sample, J Soc Psychol 78,1:3-9 [29]
Schlegel, A. & Barry III, H. (1986) The cultural consequences of female
contribution to subsistence, Am Anthropol
88:142-50 [30]
Frayser, S. G. (1989) Sexual and reproductive relationships: Cross-cultural
evidence and biosocial implications, Med
Anthropol 11,4:385-407 [31]
Widmer, E. D., Treas, J. & Newcomb, R. (1998) Attitudes toward nonmarital
sex in 24 countries, J Sex Res 35,4:
349-58 [32]
Barry III et al. (1976:p101, 102) found that the earlier clothes are assumed to
be worn, the higher sex restraint was likely to be. [33]
"I believe that severity of sex training belongs here too, but that cannot be
demonstrated at this time", which would be based on the fact that Whiting and
Child sample lacked the less "primitive" civilisations. [34]
It must be noted that Stephens ultimately, though with hesitation, expresses
psychoanalytic sentiments in order to explain cultural sexualities (vide p17). [35]
Minturn, L., Grosse, M. & Haider, S. (1969) Cultural patterning of sexual
beliefs and behavior, Ethnology
8,3:301-18 [36]
Measured on an 8-point scale, from segregation within the nuclear family to
unchaperoned dormitories. [37]
Thus, it was observed that "[t]he majority of the Guajiro seem to act as
passive carriers of their tradition and do not question, to any appreciable
degree, the reasons why they socialize sex the way they do" (Watson,
1972:p155). Sears et al.
observed that mothers apply curricular arguments, but remark: "As far as we
could tell, […] most of the mothers had not rationalized their antipathy for
masturbation. They simply said it was something they did not like to see; they
felt it was not "nice"; and they were embarrassed when their child did it,
especially in the presence of others". [38]
Lancy, D. F. (2002) Cultural constraints on children's play, in Roopnarine, J.
L. (Ed.) Conceptual, Social-Cognitive,
and Contextual Issues in the Fields of Play. Play & Culture Studies,
vol. 4, p51-60 [39]
According to a comparison by MacClenathan (1934:p331-2), "masturbation" ranked
third most undesirable among Brooklin elementary school teachers' "undesirable
modes of behaviour" (after stealing and temper outbursts)[39],
seventh among mothers attending a "child-study" class, and 21st among a sample
of seven unselected parents. Yourman (1932:p335) found that New York City
elementary school teachers ranked "heterosexual activity" as the foremost Grave
Problem; "masturbation" ranked fifth, "obscene" notes and talk ninth, and
"profanity" as nineteenth. [40]
A detailed analysis of the operationalisation of supportive attitudes is found
in preparatory material for chapter 7. [41] SR=A, GP=-A: Ibo, Menabe Tanala, M. Gilbertese,
Zuni; SR=-A GP=A: Comanche, Cubeo, Shavante [42]
After interviewed approximately 1,000 children (aged 5-15 years) from nuclear intact
families in Australia, England, North America, the Goldmans termed children asexual (up to 7 years old), presexual (7-9 years), and sexual (from 11 years on). This reflects
their (initial) disregard for sexual behaviour as well as gender development. [43]
In Whiting and Child the age of initial "serious" "modesty training" could be
established for 19/75 societies (25%), Rogoff found 24/50 (48%) HRAF
ethnographies reporting ages for modesty training, Barry III and Paxson (1971)
rated the age of modesty training (genitalia first covered, as would be typical
for males) for 140 SCCS societies, while a restudy for the same sample (Broude
and Green, 1976) revealed data on "the age at which clothing begins to be worn"
for only 42 (males) and 53 of 186 cultures (females; 23 vs 28%). [44]
Benedict, R. (1938) Continuities and discontinuities in cultural conditioning, Psychiatry 1:161-7 [45]
Benedict, thus, recognises a culture of sexuality apart from a culture of
sexual socialisation, while the latter may not be determined by political or
economic necessity, but rather by "conceptual dogma". [46]
"Childhood" is defined as the time when the child walks and talks
"proficiently", "or when the society considers the child past infancy" [while
infancy is not further defined], to the time of "onset of major physiological
changes [?] or status changes, usually associated with puberty" [?]. This would
mean that childhood lasts from "approximately" age four to "approximately" age
twelve. "Adolescence" was nowhere defined by the SCCS authors, but seems to be regarded as a
"premarital" measure, leaving the chronological matter to the highly variable
age of first marriage. Early and late childhood where divided by "an [sic] important changes in treatment or
status [marking] the transition from early to late childhood"; there is no
mentioning of possible gender differences here. The early/late dichotomy is
maintained for every measure in the 1976 article, which seems to suggest that
sexual restraint transitions, if occurring, are exponents of an
all-encompassing multi-task schedule, its timing either being defined by it, or
contributing to its time-bound definition. The whole narrative seems
self-referring, so that the universality and significance of this so-called
transition remains to be clarified. In the case of a "long" "early" childhood
(especially coinciding with an early puberty) "late" childhood would be absent,
or very short (one year or less). The authors do not address historical,
racial, and gender differences in pubertal timing, nor do they take into
consideration that puberty is a multi-staged, multi-facetted transition in both
sexes. Apparently, biological and social transitions are globally assumed to
coincide, which is contrary to facts over a cultural and historical span. As
for the marriage question, prepubertal marriage denies the existence of
adolescence, and perhaps even late childhood. Issues of pre-betrothal sexual
restraint are not examined cross-culturally. This would add up to a rather
complicated situation, since concepts of marriage and betrothal, especially
when occurring early, more than once prove to be blurred. Rosenblatt et al. (1969)
discussed sexual restriction during betrothal in 27 societies, but did not take
into consideration the timing of the betrothal. See Rosenblatt, P. C., Fugita,
S. S. & McDowell, K. V. (1969) Wealth transfer and restrictions on sexual
relations during betrothal, Ethnology
8,3:319-28 [47]
The definition of this variable allows a contamination with a difference in
sexological status. [48]
Weisfeld, G. (1997) Puberty rites as clues to the nature of human adolescence, Cross-Cult Res 31,1:27-54 [49]
This would be supported by SCCS data. See Kitahara, M. (1983) Female puberty
rites: Reconsideration and speculation, Adolescence
18(72):957-64; Kitahara, M. (1984) Female Physiology and Female Puberty Rites, Ethos 12,2:132-50 [50]
Thus putting the
expression "pubertal initiation" in perspective, 21% of boy and 9% of girl
cases were scheduled "before genital maturation". [51]
In 10 of 62 (11%) boy initiation
cases "sexuality" (referring to "sexual capacity or attractiveness") was the
"principle focus" of the ceremony; this would be so in 18 of 84 (21%) girl
initiation cases. Fertility, in
contrast, would be the principal focus in 10 boy cases, and 34 girl cases.
Taken together, sexuality/fertility accounts for the focal agenda in about 1/3 of exclusively boy cases (N=17), ½ of exclusively girl cases (N=39), and up to 71% for girls where
there are ceremonies for both sexes (N=45). [52] Gagnon, J. H. (1977) Human
Sexualities. Ilinois: Scott, Foresman & Co. [53]
Becker, G. (1984) The Social Regulation of Sexuality: A Cross-Cultural
Perspective, Curr Perspect Soc Theory
5:45-69 [54]
Thorogood, N. (2000) Sex education as a disciplinary
technique: Policy and Practice in England and Wales, Sexualities 3,4:425-38. Cf. Thorogood, N. (1992) Sex Education as
Social Control, Critical Public Health
3,2:43-50 [55]
Monk, D. (1998) Sex education and the problematization of teenage pregnancy: a
genealogy of law and governance, Social
& Legal Studies 7,2:239-59 [56] LaBeff, E. E. et al. (1978)
A Note on Cross-National Methodology:
Measuring Sexual Permissiveness among College Students in New Mexico and the
U.S. Paper for the Southwestern Sociological Association |