Chapter 10

Chapter Ten

Future Trends in
Premarital Sexual Standards


THE KEY EVENTS OF THE LAST FEW CENTURIES were the numerous revolutions which were dealt with earlier in this book-the urban-industrial, romantic-love, and feminist revolutions. These three revolutions were really one. A mighty change was occurring in Western society-a change more significant than any since the great discovery of agriculture ten thousand years ago. America and the Western World were changing into a new type of society, an urbanindustrialized society. Because of this change, premarital coitus is not the same today as it was one hundred years ago. Its consequences and meaning today are quite different. Many people have not yet realized this, for the old beliefs about coitus tend to become reified.

Many of our problems in America today are due to the fact that we are operating, in certain respects, with our ancient rural customs in an urban-industrialized society. There is nothing wrong with these customs as such, but many of them do not fit our present-day society. The early agricultural societies ten thousand years ago must have faced somewhat the same sort of conditions. In those times, it would have been the older hunting-society norms which would be hanging on and causing problems. This emerging type of society is quite new, less than four centuries old, so we still remember quite a bit about our agricultural-rural past. We have, however, forgotten mostly everything about our hunting-society past. In a few centuries, the same may be true of much of our agricultural past. We will have devised many new norms, kept some of the old, and reshaped many others to fit our changing needs. The customs which are still capable of maintaining society, of helping to keep our culture unified and strong should last. In many areas of behavior, such customs are lacking, and new ones will have to be developed if we are to maintain cohesion. In the area of premarital sexual activity, many of our older customs can no longer do their job of maintaining our courtship institution, and new customs, such as permissiveness with affection, the transitional double standard, and petting with affection, are evolving. When one looks at these changes in the setting of the totality of events which have occurred in our society, they are not at all surprising.
1





THE DOUBLE STANDARD AND ABSTINENCE



The revolutions have all tended towards equalitarian relations between men and women and were thus opposed to the double standard. It is unlikely that these revolutions will stop altering our society in this direction. Our society is too much a part of these revolutions. A rural society with its close-knit groups and strong social controls, with its nonrational approach and its lack of pragmatism is the ideal setting for the double standard. But that way of life is disappearing in America, and, as it departs, it is taking with it the double standard. The transitional double standard developed in the attempt to somewhat liberalize the double standard to make it fit better into our society. At present this subtype seems to be growing rather than decreasing. However, it is possible that as people become more aware of the typical double standard inequalities still within it, it may lose some of its popularity to a single standard, such as permissiveness with affection.

Our way of life today emphasizes the full enjoyment of life by both men and women. We have a hedonistic approach to living, not an ascetic one. We are a nation of people who value rationality quite highly. We are so imbued with the scientific ethics of our time that we seem to demand that one be able to defend his views, whether they be in politics, religion, or in sexual morality.
2 The inequality of our traditional sexual customs and the many inconsistencies in them make them a good target for rationalism. The asceticism of these sexual standards is opposed by our hedonism and secularism.

However, the orthodox double standard is still very much with us. The fact that many millions of people reject it and would prefer another standard does not in itself remove this ancient belief. It has five or more millenniums of tradition to support it and it has the usual fear of the unknown to prevent people from leaving it. Many people probably have other preferences over and above the orthodox double standard, but most of these people are afraid to step out of line and they still have some amount of sympathy for this standard.
3

This sort of attitude seems to be a frequent prelude to social change. The present-day situation indicates that the social supports of this way of life are greatly weakened, and more and more people are finding it distasteful. It is just a matter of time, then, until the reaction becomes somewhat stronger and people move more openly in other directions. The first innovators, in fact, have already appeared in the form of the adherents of the two single permissive standards, and in the supporters of the transitional double standard. In the meantime, do not be fooled; the "monster" is not dead. He is very much alive in the sexual customs of America-but the signs of his incurable illness are equally undeniable.

The trends in the standard of abstinence are quite similar to those in the double standard, as I have somewhat indicated in our previous discussion. Abstinence has lost adherents because its ancient supports have been greatly weakened, e.g., the risk of pregnancy, venereal disease, social condemnation, and guilt feelings are quite different in present-day society. Also, the emphasis on the desirability of physical and psychic satisfaction is higher today. The concept of behavior which is acceptable to this standard is changing also. Our petting standards are mainly outgrowths of the unchaperoned dating period starting before World War I and are clear reflections of the more liberal, less controlled form of behavior among young people, which was and is a reflection of the new type of society which is developing. In this sense, it may be said that as the total number of adherents of abstinence decreased in the last fifty years, the relative number of adherents who accept petting as part of their standard of abstinence increased greatly.
4

This sort of change in abstinence is what one would expect to occur in a society which was becoming much more open in its attitude towards sexual behavior and was also becoming freer and more equalitarian in its treatment of young people.
5 Such a change fits in perfectly with the over-all movement towards more sexual freedom for young people. It is in accordance with the tremendous increases in premarital coitus. In short, allowing increased sexual freedom to those who accepted abstinence was necessary if that standard was to continue to be significant in our culture. If the abstinence standards continued to allow only discriminate kissing, the number of adherents of such standards would probably have been drastically reduced. Such an event would have forced many people to choose coitus in preference to such rigid restrictions. This, however, did not occur, because there was an alternative; one did not have to choose between kissing or coitus; one could compromise and engage in petting. This is the choice many young people made. In this way they could gain increased sexual behavior and still keep their virginity. There have been suggestions made that we accept petting to orgasm for young people, as a compromise solution to our premarital sexual problems today:



It seems that the solution most in accordance with modern knowledge lies in an intelligent giving of advice to adolescents, through the parents and through the ordinary channels of sex education, about the forms of sexual play that are most likely to lead to orgasm for both parties, and least likely to result in conception or an undesirable carryover into adult practice, coupled with a definite social tolerance of such equivalents as will enable them to be open and not clandestine.
6



Nevertheless, there are many aspects of such a compromise which make it precarious. One quite obvious one is that petting is close enough to actual coitus so that it may easily tempt one to cross the line in behavior and eventually in belief also. This would be particularly true for those who accept heavy petting. These petting standards may be only stopping-off points on the way to a fully permissive standard. Many women, upon falling in love, seem to leave their petting standard and accept permissiveness with affection or the transitional double standard. There is some evidence to support this transitory view of the petting standards. Between the ages of twenty and twenty-five, Kinsey found that the number of non-virgins virtually doubled. Most of these women seem to accept their changed behavior without regret. It is probable that this is the time when the majority of the conversions from abstinence to permissiveness with affection or the transitional double standard occur. The transitional double standard is another subtype which, like petting, developed in response to the liberal, permissive pressures of the twentieth century. This standard may also be only a temporary compromise on the road to a single standard of permissiveness, such as permissiveness with affection.

The following tables list some of the evidence for increased heavy petting and for the rapid rise in both petting to orgasm and actual coitus, between the ages of twenty and twenty-five.

Many people may be bothered by such a prediction of the increasing decline of the double standard and, more importantly, abstinence. But it cannot be denied that abstinence has declined since 1900, and there has been a strong shift in the direction of more sexual liberty for virgins. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that our society, with its lack of chaperonage, its anonymity, its rationality, its freedom for young people, and its equalitarian aspects, is not conducive to chastity. The main support today for both abstinence and the double standard is the emotional backing these standards derive from being taught as acceptable or proper behavior. People will think up reasons if they are asked why they behave a certain way, but emotional habit seems to be the valid explanation. Such emotional backing is potent and difficult to change regardless of other factors. One can see this in the reaction of American smokers to the lung cancer "scare." Although the American Cancer Society has come out against heavy cigarette smoking, most people continue to smoke and make up rationalizations for their behavior. The habits of years are hard to change. This is probably the major reason why abstinence and the double standard are still powerful despite all the forces which are slowly weakening them.
7
 


As the double standard weakens, the choice more clearly becomes abstinence or permissiveness for both men and women. The double standard protected abstinence from this choice in the past, by affording a means of "evading" or "compensating" for full abstinence. Thus, although abstinence believers may dislike the double standard, it has been the main support of at least female chastity and of at least a formal allegiance to full abstinence. As equalitarian pressures weaken the orthodox double standard, it becomes more obvious that full abstinence for both men and women is not attractive to many Americans, and when forced to choose between full abstinence or greater female permissiveness, these people often choose permissiveness.

But one may ask-cannot something be done to reinstate, to strengthen abstinence and the double standard? These standards are still quite strong and are likely to remain so for many generations even though they are gradually weakening. Bertrand Russell has made some penetrating and sarcastic remarks concerning the possibility of reversing this process:



If, on the other hand, the old morality is to be re-established certain things are essential; some of them are already done, but experience shows that these alone are not effective. The first essential is that the education of girls should be such as to make them stupid and superstitious and ignorant; this requisite is already fulfilled in schools over which the churches have any control. The next requisite is a very severe censorship upon all books giving information on sex subjects; this condition also is coming to be fulfilled in England and America, since the censorship, without change in the law, is being tightened up by the increasing zeal of the police. These conditions, however, since they exist already, are clearly insufficient. The only thing that will suffice is to remove from young women all opportunity of being alone with men. Girls must be forbidden to earn their living by work outside the home; they must never be allowed an outing unless accompanied by their mother or an aunt; the regrettable practice of going to dances without a chaperon must be sternly stamped out. It must be illegal for an unmarried woman under fifty to possess a motor-car, and perhaps it would be wise to subject all unmarried women once a month to medical examination by police doctors and to send to a penitentiary all such as were found to be not virgins. The use of contraceptives must, of course, be eradicated, and it must be illegal in conversation with unmarried women to throw doubt upon the dogma of eternal damnation. These measures, if carried out vigorously for a hundred years or more, may perhaps do something to stem the rising tide of immorality. l think, however that in order to avoid the risk of certain abuses, it would be necessary that all policemen and all medical men should be castrated. . . (along with all other men) with the exception of ministers of religion. (Since reading Elmer Gantry, l have begun to feel that even this exception is perhaps not quite wise.)

It will be seen that there are difficulties and objections whichever course we adopt. If we are to allow the new morality to take its course, it is bound to go further than it has done, and to raise difficulties hardly as yet appreciated. If on the other hand, we attempt in the modern world to enforce restrictions which were possible in a former age, we are led into an impossible stringency of regulation, against which human nature would soon rebel. This is so clear that, whatever the dangers or difficulties, we must be content to let the world go forward rather than back. For this purpose we shall need a genuinely new morality. I mean by this that obligations and duties will still have to be recognized, though they may be very different from the obligations and duties recognized in the past. So long as all the moralists content themselves with preaching a return to a system which is as dead as the Dodo, they can do nothing whatever to moralize the new freedom or to point out the new duties which it brings with it. I do not think that the new system any more than the old should involve an unbridled yielding to impulse, but I think the occasions for restraining impulse and the motives for doing so will have to be different from what they have been in the past. In fact, the whole problem of sexual morality needs thinking out afresh.
8





THE SINGLE PERMISSIVE STANDARDS



The revolutions were much kinder to the single standards. As urban living, reinforced by contraceptive knowledge and feminist pressures, began to move society into a more equali tarian position, the permissive standards began to grow. After all, if society is changing in the direction of greater equality among the sexes, it is natural to expect the development of such single standards allowing equal sexual rights to both men and women.

It was in the iconoclastic environment of the 1920's that the permissive standards took root. The generation of people born between 1900 and 1910 revolutionized our sexual customs. The generations born since that time have somewhat continued these changes, but for the most part, they have only consolidated the inroads that this older generation perpetrated. Those born in the 1900-09 decade vastly increased our former sexual rates in almost all areas when they came to maturity in the 1920's-the decade of the sexual revolution. For the first time in history, women were given a chance for a third choice, i.e., it no longer was the Greek choice of Hetaerae or wife, or the nineteenth-century choice of pleasure-woman or wife; women could now choose to accept premarital sexual behavior, not as prostitutes or pleasure-seekers but as lovers.

Let there be no misunderstanding about the 1920's. Many people were just enjoying prosperity and bootlegging and having a fling. These people were not looking for a new sexual standard; many lacked any strong standard. The rapid changes in our society had uprooted these people and left them somewhat disillusioned or indifferent to sexual standards. Many were armed with the new freedom ideology of Freud and were waging war against the Victorian restrictions still present in our culture. They had no clear-cut standard-they were simply against repression of any kind.
9 Nevertheless, these people started the changes which eventually led to the growth of these standards. People do not like to feel guilty about their behavior. Thus as time went on, many of these iconoclasts began to accept and formulate more liberal standards which would tolerate their behavior.

The following tables present evidence from our major research studies which documents this vast increase in premarital coitus and indicates the direction of these increases.

Tables 3, 4, and 5 contain much valuable information, but please bear in mind that the most that can be obtained from these studies is an indication of general behavior for certain segments of our population. The vast increase in sexual behavior, brought about by those people born between 1900 and 1909, is clearly illustrated in the tables. The male nonvirginity figures are low on Table 3 because of the high number of male college graduates involved in this particular study. As mentioned previously college men seem to have the least amount of premarital coitus. This can also be seen in Table 5. Unfortunately, the part of Table 3 on men and Table 5 are not comparable, since Table 3 has no men in the birth category of the "younger generation." However, the general average of all the men in Table 3 and the college-educated men in the "older generation" in Table 5 are comparable. The males in Table 5 (older generation) are not broken down to check for trends within this group. In Table 3, such a breakdown is made into three decades and sharp trends are evidenced. Later increases in male non-virginity, as in the "younger generation" are slight and at certain ages only.




There are more recent data from the Terman study that could have been added to Table 3. These data indicate that 86 per cent of the men and 68 per cent of the women born between 1910-19 were sexually experienced before marriage, but this information was based on only 22 men and 60 women, and I have not included it.
10 The Burgess and Wallin study is composed almost exclusively of couples born between 1910-19 and they report no such rapid rise in non-virginity.10a Further, evidence for doubting this part of the Terman study can be obtained by examining Tables 4 and 5 which shows that Kinsey, like Burgess and Wallin, found no sharp rise in this decade.

In what kind of intercourse have these people engaged? In Table 3 the number of female virgins decreased from the "before 1890" to the "1900-09" birth group by a considerable amount, from 86 per cent to 51 per cent. Better than two-thirds of this decrease was due to increases in the number of women who had intercourse with their fiances only; the other one-third of the increase was due to women who had intercourse with their fiances and also with others. Kinsey's findings in Table 4 are somewhat more indicative of an equal growth in the "fiance and others" category as well as the "fiance only" category. But both of these categories indicate that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of women who are engaging in premarital coitus with their future spouses. Some of the "others" would be love affairs, while some would be more casual affairs.

Table 3 affords information on men over the course of several decades. An interesting set of changes appears to have occurred in this group of young men. Going from those born before 1890 to those born between 1900-09, we find there is an extraordinary reduction in the number of men who have premarital coitus of the "only with others" type. The percentage of men engaging in such behavior was more than cut in half. In the same period, the portion of men who had experience only with their fiancees increased almost fourfold. The increase in the portion of men who experienced coitus with their "fiancee and others" was almost as great. Kinsey also notes this decrease in "only with others," when he mentions that about 10 per cent of the total premarital coitus of all the men in his study was with prostitutes, and, although the total amount of coitus did not decrease, the frequency of coitus with prostitutes seemed to have been cut in half in the younger generation described in Table 5.
11

The over-all evidence from Terman clearly indicates that men, too, have experienced a most radical increase in the amount of sexual intercourse with their future spouses. The great decrease in the number of men who experienced coitus "only with others" is evidence of a significant change, i.e., the decline of the double standard. Men who formerly would not have coitus with their fiancees because they were "good" girls were now altering their standards and indulging with their fiancees. This probably meant that these men were either accepting the transitional subtype or were rejecting the double standard altogether and accepting permissiveness with affection in its place. Here, then, was a general movement in which men stopped being so strictly double standard and women ceased being so strictly abstinent.
12 Person-centered coitus was coming of age.

The similarity between these tables, composed of data gathered from people from different parts of the country, in studies separated in time by about fifteen years, lends support to the belief that these findings reflect a genuine trend in our culture. One should, however, be aware of the high percentages of college graduates and urban people in these studies. Although these are the best studies available, they are not fully representative and are subject to criticism on several levels, as was pointed out previously. They are, however, accurate enough to indicate general trends among large segments of our over-all population.

The lack of any sharp upswing in these trends since the peaks were established in the 1920's is hypothesized as due to a consolidation process. It might well be that, since the 1920's, what has been occurring is a change in attitudes to match the change in behavior of that era. The actual behavior may thus be very much the same, but a much larger percentage of these people today are people who no longer look upon their behavior as wrong and have more fully accepted person-centered coitus and petting.

It is worth noting that, although rates for coitus do not seem to have sharply increased since the twenties, the rates for petting have increased notably since then. (See table 1.)




As has been mentioned, this increase in petting adherents may well lead, in time, to an increase in people who accept full coitus. It seems plausible to expect the change from abstinence to occur gradually and for individuals to accept petting before they fully accept coitus. This is one of the senses in which the time from the 1920's to the 1960's can be viewed as a consolidation process, a consolidation of the changes made and a preparation for further changes. In addition to the number of people who accept petting there seems to have been an increase in the transitional double standard, which also seems like a step toward a single standard of permissiveness with affection.

The 1920's were unusual times. Women were being arrested for wearing too-short bathing suits, men were being put on trial for teaching evolution, and bold girls were accepting the new ideas concerning petting and discussing sexual behavior with their dates. Out of this setting came the people who were to smash the sexual idols of Victorianism beyond repair. Compare our attitudes today to the 1920's and one can see immediately that, although our coital behavior is not radically different, we have consolidated our ideas and accept our behavior with a more natural, normal, air. We are more sure of our beliefs.
13 There is still much confusion in the area of sexual beliefs today. But there are strong signs that the air is clearing, and, as the "clouds" move away, one can see the battered orthodox double standard and abstinence structures alongside the new edifices of the standards allowing person-centered petting and coitus.14

My impression from my informal questioning of college and non-college people lends strong support to the research evidence quoted here.
15



QUO VADIS?



This hypothesis concerning trends is supported by the authors of the major studies. They stated that a new, more permissive and equalitarian sex code is evolving.
16 None of of these authors, however, have spelled out in detail the specific nature of that code nor the vital reasons for such a change.

a) The 1960's and the Next Fifty Years. The changes which have occurred in the last few generations have been so extreme that no one could have fully foreseen them. The changes which will occur in the next few generations may be equally as extreme, and no one can fully predict them. In the light of the evidence and reasoning covered in this book, however, I will venture to say that the next fifty years, like the last fifty years, will witness an increasing acceptance of person-centered coitus and petting. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that there will be increasing numbers of doublestandard people who will accept the transitional double standard and increasing numbers of abstinent people who will accept petting with affection. Finally, I believe Americans will increasingly move from the transitional double standard and petting with affection to full acceptance of permissiveness with affection.
17 This will occur because permissiveness with affection seems most fully integrated with our over-all society, and its cultural trends. It is such cultural trends which, in the long run, affect changes in attitudes. An analogous situation is the school integration issue in the South today. Although many southerners oppose such integration, many of them admit, and social scientists agree, that cultural factors, such as industrialism and urbanism, will eventually make school integration a reality in the South and in time will even make it acceptable.18 It is by means of similar very powerful forces that our sexual standards are changing. Now, let me spell out in more detail the nature and speed of these trends as I see them.

Within the next decade, we should increasingly approach a clarification of our sexual beliefs and a concomitant increased consolidation of the changes begun in the 1920's. The post-war baby crop should finish off the consolidation process and make new inroads in the direction of the three standards which have been shown to be increasing most rapidly (petting with affection, transitional double standard, and permissiveness with affection). This post-war generation is being brought up in all sorts of permissiveness-it is being allowed freedom which previous generations were denied. This is so in part because, since World War II, we have been living in an era of prosperity, a time when we have had the leisure to worry about what is right and wrong and how to better bring up children. Even more important than our prosperity is our higher level of education and our favorable attitudes towards pragmatic, rational improvement of our lives.
19 The vast increases in the percentage of people going to college evidences this trend. One-third of the high school graduates attend college and with scholarships, this percentage may go even higher.20 Such leisure, education, and pragmatic trends weaken the traditional order of our society and tend to strengthen the newer aspects in our way of life, especially among the upper and middle-class-educated group. Since our older way of life is not well integrated with our present society, these trends are very likely to continue regardless of our economic conditions.

There are other vital reasons why I believe this post-war generation, even more so than the previous generations, will find person-centered behavior to its liking. The generation of the roaring twenties was a generation in revolt, a generation more busy breaking down old idols than building new ones.
21 The children of these idol-breakers, the parents of the present post-war generation, were born during and immediately before these iconoclastic twenties, and by the time they grew up, permissiveness in sexual behavior was becoming more acceptable due to the revolutionary behavior of their parents. These youngsters grew up in the depression times of the 1930's. People were liberal then-they were looking for new ideas to get out of the depression and, because of their own plight, many were more tolerant of others' behavior in all areas.22

Then came World War II, and these same parents, both men and women, went into the armed services in unprecedented numbers and traveled all over America, Europe, and Asia. This situation offered the opportunity to gain a broader perspective on our own American customs. After the war, as this generation settled down to family life, the good times continued, and this was the atmosphere into which their children were born.
23

The new post-war generation is far enough removed from the puritanical past, and deeply enough involved in the newer permissive tradition to take it for granted. It is hypothesized that in the 1960's, they will complete the consolidation process started by their grandparents and also start a more overt, public, and formal acceptance of standards which allow person-centered petting and coitus. Instead of the presentday informal acceptance of these standards, we may well find more and more people being brought up from childhood in accord with these more liberal norms. Then these additional "advances" will take time to consolidate and increase. Each generation should be more securely rooted in these new standards than the last generation. This is the process that I believe will slowly move petting with affection, and the transitional double standard, and, ultimately, permissiveness with affection into increasing dominance. This over-all process occurred for several generations previous to the revolt of the 1920's and has been going on since then. It is probably irreversible, given our emerging society and the consequences and meaning of coitus in that society.

The spearhead of this liberal move may well contain a strong mixture of college graduates. There are several reasons for believing this to be the case. First, college men are noted for their low incidences of intercourse with prostitutes, as compared to other groups; they are greater adherents to more equalitarian activities, such as petting with affection and permissiveness with affection, rather than the heavy concentration of body-centered behavior found at the lower educational levels. College graduates are thus more equalitarian in their approach to coitus and in their thoughts about it. Despite their higher percentage of abstinence people, these qualities make them more likely to continue to increasingly accept person-centered coitus. The change in sexual standards not only involves the female becoming more permissive but it also involves the male becoming more discriminate-it is a dual change in which the male and female are approaching each other. In this sense, the discrimination of the college male makes him a likely member of the "avant-garde." Also, college women seem to have the longest periods of courtship due to their later ages at marriage. This means they have more time to become involved in a premarital love affair which would entail sexual intercourse. It also means that college people have more time to spend in clarifying and altering their sexual beliefs. This, coupled with the already high predisposition this group has for equalitarian, person-centered coitus, leads one to expect they will set the pace in sexual changes in the direction of person-centered sexual behavior.

There will, of course, be opposition to these changes. Our religious organizations may fight such liberal moves, especially our more orthodox religions.
24 The restrictive moves of such religious bodies may, in the long run, encourage the new standards by making the old standards more difficult to live up to. The college group most likely will hold a great deal of prestige and power and they should not have a difficult time defeating opposition such as this. The most serious opposition to these new standards will probably come from the older and more conservative element within the college group.25

Finally, one should note that the rate of change will surely vary for different parts of the country-being the slowest in the more rural regions such as the South. Many southern states still do not allow women on juries.
26 The strong double-standard tradition of the South will be most difficult to change. On the other hand, the highly urbanized areas of the Northeast and West Coast will probably lead in this change of sexual codes. There will also, no doubt, be class differences. Permissiveness with affection will not likely be as popular among the lower-educational classes especially not with the orthodox-double-standard men in these classes. Such men may be more favorable to the transitional double standard which would be a less radical change.

As for changes in other institutions, such as the family and our political and economic establishments, one can only say that they will probably continue to some extent in the equalitarian direction in which they have been headed for the last several generations.
27

b) Female Erotic Imagery. The female in Western society has usually lacked in erotic imagery, i.e., in the ability to stimulate herself sexually by mentally referring to certain standardized images.
28 Men have had such erotic imagery for centuries due to our culture. The ancient Sumerians had the lipstick and perfume we still have. Silk stockings and high heels are erotic images for males today. The upright female bosom seems one of the key symbols of the present, with the emphasis on protruding buttocks increasing.29 Thus, in a myriad of ways, men have cultural symbols which, although they have no intrinsic connection with biological factors, are capable of arousing or strengthening desires. Because our history has been largely one of a double standard, the development of such erotic imagery for women has been neglected-women were to represent erotic imagery for men but the reverse relation was undeveloped. This is probably one of the major reasons why women are not, on the average, as quickly or easily aroused as men, why their concentration on sexual fulfillment is somewhat more difficult to maintain, and why they often need more manual manipulation30 - they lack erotic imagery to help focus and intensify their desires.

There are indications that these things are changing and that we are slowly developing erotic imagery for women. Now, of course, even if one's culture does not stress such imagery, women can develop their own erotic images and have done so in the past. But today we seem to be developing shared, cultural erotic images.

Given our type of culture, one of the most common attributes of erotic imagery is forbiddenness. That is, an increase in sexual desire occurs, not because of the sexual object or any other symbols of sexual desire, but predominantly because the sexual object is forbidden. This is behind the traffic in strip tease shows and the fantastic sales of banned books. However, just as people who read banned books find they have no interest in non-banned literature, people with a strong "forbidden" orientation to sexual behavior, find they lose interest when the act is not forbidden. Men, due to our culture, are likely to have many erotic images besides the forbidden symbol. In the case of women, one may be more apt to find situations where the lack of other erotic imagery leads to serious loss of interest in non-forbidden sexual relations, such as in marriage. As female erotic imagery develops, such women will have other images to fall back upon, and as sexual behavior becomes more acceptable, the forbidden may become less significant in motivation.

Perhaps the emphatic stress on women being less inhibited concerning the display of their figures in hula hoops, cha-chas, and beach and summer wear is part of the "freeing" of women's sexual impulses. Perhaps the popularity of Elvis Presley and his type is an indication of the willingness of women to watch men throw "bumps and grinds"- a growth of erotic imagery. The emphasis in movies, books, and song, on women who have developed sexual desires and, apparently, sexual imagery, fits into this same pattern. For example, the National Council of Churches of Christ, a relatively liberal organization, has protested against the kind of movies being released. It may well be that their protest is aimed at movies like Anatomy of A Murder, wherein the female lead frequently discusses her torn pair of panties; or North by Northwest, wherein the female lead successfully propositions the male lead to spend the night with her. Such displays of sexual interest on the part of females may be a step in the direction of encouraging the growth of female erotic imagery.

In the world of music, similar emphasis on female sexuality can be found in songs like "A Warm Hearted Woman and a Cold Hearted Man." In the area of books, there are many recent publications which openly purport to show the woman how to enjoy her sexual life in marriage and which instruct her that such pleasure is her right.
31

The erotic imagery of men results in hundreds of millions of dollars being paid to the female cosmetic and clothing industries. The cosmetic and clothing industries for men are not as much affected by erotic imagery. However, the roles of men and women have changed to such an extent in this century that men can no longer be certain that it is only the female who must keep up her physical appearance. The independence of the female has probably made both the male and the female more concerned with the male's physical attractiveness. More importantly, as the male and female roles have changed, they have become more interdependent, i.e., men and women overlap more in what they do, and often they do the same thing. Women are more in business and men more in the home than before; this increasing familiarity with each other's roles may make the woman more able and desirous of developing a complementary type of erotic imagery.

Admittedly, many of the above details are speculative, but the general development of erotic imagery on the part of females seems very probable. Perhaps the most important factor in this development has not been mentioned, namely, the vast increase in female sexual behavior. Perhaps out of such increasing experience with sexual behavior comes the most important erotic images which in time come to be shared and informally passed down.

c) A Code of Their Own. There is one very important aspect of the change in our sexual standards which should be noted before closing this book: As one looks at our past, particularly at the double standard, one finds that sexual activity was usually a divisive force-a force which kept men and women from really knowing and loving each other. The girl's role as controller of the sexual relation is becoming more and more difficult as her own experience makes her more sexually desirous of coitus.
31a A "hungry" guardian is not very reliable, and in modern-day society, the frigid female is more and more a thing of the past.32

By forbidding premarital coitus to the female, the double standard makes premarital relations a forbidden fruit and sets up a barrier between men and women. Girls use sex as the bait, and men use lines to obtain the lure. Sex becomes a weapon between men and women.

Permissiveness with affection, together with petting with affection and the transitional double standard, are changing this situation. For the first time in thousands of years, we have sexual standards which tend to unify rather than divide men and women.
33 Especially in permissiveness with affection, coitus is no longer forbidden, and the motivation to deceive the opposite sex in order to obtain pleasure is greatly reduced.34 For the first time in many milleniums, Western society is evolving sexual standards which will tend to make men and women better able to understand and live with each other.

Past sexual standards were developed by parents-by those in authority. These standards were devised, consciously and unconsciously, so as to make the "best" match for offspring. As has been shown, about the end of the nineteenth century, the balance of power in mating choice shifted to the young people themselves. Things changed quite rapidly. Love became the crucial basis for marriage. Still, the young people kept the older, adult-devised sexual code and tried to adjust to it. Now a new code is being fashioned and, for the first time, by young people themselves. Since they are the ones to choose their mates, they must also decide how to act in courtship.
35 Because this new code is being devised by young people, it is concerned with their problems and desires. The situation today is most sharply distinguished from the past in that sexual behavior is now almost fully separated from pregnancy and marriage, if one so desires. That is, the chances of pregnancy occurring can now be controlled, and since marriages are arranged by young people themselves, they need not marry the person they have sexual relations with, and parents cannot force them to do so. In the past, the only time sexual behavior could be separated from pregnancy and marriage was when it occurred in a house of prostitution. This exclusive franchise no longer exists.

Our newer affectionate standards merely say "not all sex is bad," they do not say "all sex is equally good" or "all sex is good but some better." They have thus not fully lost their Puritanism.
36 Many of the believers in these newer sex codes think they are holding "individual" beliefs. In reality, their beliefs are social and are well rooted in our emerging society. Permissiveness with affection, for example, is based on our cultural blending of sex and affection and on our custom of allowing free choice of one's mate. Such a new code is no more an individual matter than was our older double standard or abstinence code which was rooted in parental choice of mate customs and the separation of sex and affection.

The transition to a newer code has occurred along with the change in marriage from a union of two families to a union of individuals. As this change took place, economic reasons for controlling one's children's sexual behavior lessened, and the balance of power moved from the parents to the young people themselves. This, of course, is not an all-or-none matter-parents still have some say in mate choice. But, as parental controls diminished, new sexual codes were devised by the young people themselves-more liberal codes, to be sure, but codes which nonetheless were still rooted in our past. Permissiveness without affection and the strong-affection subtype of permissiveness with affection are, to a great extent, free of our older sexual taboos, but these are minority positions. Nevertheless, the newer affectionate codes are new in that, unlike the orthodox double standard, they have linked sex and love, and they are capable of generating understanding between men and women. This is indeed something new in Western society.

One dating custom which is relevant here and which has only come into its prime in the last twenty years is ''going steady." Ehrmann's study contains one of the most thorough analyses of this pattern. He found that going steady did lead to more sex for females, predominantly because of the affection present. Such a person-centered courtship form seems to be a factor in the trends about which we are speaking. In addition, Ehrmann and others have noted the great tolerance young people have for other people's sex behavior. This attitude, too, should help speed up the prevailing trends.
36a.

d) Dangers of Prediction. Surely, all the above evidenc is not perfect. As stated previously, the researches have not dealt with all segments of America. Many things may happen to throw off a prediction. The generation born around 1800 was thought by many to be the generation which would change the world in numerous respects. These people were a great disappointment and turned out to be more conservative than their parents. Perhaps the same thing will happen now.

Regardless of the liberalism of the next generation, it does not take a prophet to deduce that permissiveness with affection, together with petting with affection and the transitional double standard, would rate highest on the criteria of general integration with at least the large middle and upper segments of our culture. It is such cultural integration which, in time, affects people's preferences. Even though many Americans may oppose these standards now, in time the cultural pressures will lead to more and more young people accepting them. Suppose, however, Americans decide not to make any choice-suppose they decide to leave things as they are? It is possible that the situation may remain somewhat the same for the next generation or two.

Such an event, however, would merely put off these changes to a future date. Sooner or later people in our country will have to choose. They cannot forever continue to be confused or to resist the pressures for change that emanate from many parts of our culture. Certainly, every culture has many contradictions and inconsistencies within it, just as every individual does.
37 But there is a limit to the number which a culture or an individual can tolerate. This is particularly true once people realize these conflicts. America is very close to the saturation point in terms of our sexual customs, and, therefore, change should come soon. We are too conscious of the problems in this area to be likely to do otherwise than make a choice. Unless our urban-industrial-equalitarian culture alters quite unexpectedly, as Americans change, the move will continue to be in support of person-centered premarital sexual behavior.

Such trends, of course, only determine what the dominant standard will be; there will always be groups who accept other standards. Our nation is much too heterogeneous to expect 100 per cent acceptance of any standard. It may well be that many of our grandchildren will accept person-centered coitus with the same vigor as our grandparents accepted chastity. A full switch will, of course, take more time. We can be sure that the orthodox double standard and abstinence will still exist and probably will be supported by sizable followings for many generations to come.





PRESENT-DAY STANDARDS



Many people have expressed their fears concerning the rapid growth of body-centered coitus. The evidence cited does not seem to support such views. There are, no doubt, many instances of body-centered coitus of the double-standard type; in fact, this is probably still the dominant type of coitus in America for males. But in the last century, there has been a constantly increasing proportion of personcentered coitus, despite the fact that permissiveness without affection and petting without affection have probably experienced a considerable, although smaller, growth. But our cultural opposition to such body-centered behavior is a strong obstacle to any rapid acceptance of such standards. It appears probable that person-centered coital and petting standards will continue to be the major direction of growth for quite some time to come.

Following is a list of all the major standards and their subdivisions. The evidence is far from complete. Many segments of our population need to be investigated, and more research in terms of standards as well as behavior is sorely needed. The distribution of sexual standards here applies only to the higher educational and occupational segments of our population, since it is predominantly those segments which are known through research.




As this chart shows, for the higher occupational and educational classes, it is believed that of our three most rapidly growing standards, petting with affection and the transitional double standard are at present the most widespread. Permissiveness with affection also seems to have a sizable following but since it is further removed from our older standards, its greatest growth is probably yet to come.





CONCLUSIONS



This book's functional examination of the integration of sexual standards is merely a first step. Much of what has been stated here is hypothetical and must be further clarified and tested.
38 Sexual behavior is a constant process and one which has high potentialities for maintaining or disrupting the existing social organization. It is imperative that more work be done to ascertain how our sexual standards are related to such important socio-cultural variables as values, ethnic groups, and social classes, and to investigate further the sociological reasons for such differences as may exist.39

The great increases in sexual behavior are not just violations of belief, but are predominantly signs of the new sexual standards which are emerging. One of the major aims of this book is to fill a gap in the literature on sexual behavior by putting forth an analysis of the integration of our sexual standards, by means of an examination of the characteristics, consequences, and trends of these standards. It is hoped that through the "four standards" functional approach developed in this book, additional insights into sexual behavior can be obtained and more knowledge gained of the conditions under which certain consequences and socio-cultural trends occur. This approach makes possible the distinction between patterns of sexual behavior and sexual standards, thus alerting us as to what cultural standards accompany what societal behavior patterns. Such distinctions are essential in order to understand social and cultural change. By means of our examination, it is hoped that we have shown how, as the meaning of sexual behavior changed in terms of its consequences and integration in society, the standards also changed. The values underlying our sexual standards have changed in their meaning for us greatly in the last century-some have become more important, some less, some have changed in their consequences, some remain constant. By focusing on such values, we can understand standards more objectively than by special pleading concerning the worth of a particular value or standard.

In our present state of affairs, the situation is such that, no matter which standard our young people abide by, there will likely be a goodly amount of conflict connected with it. Many Americans reflect our split culture by being partly in sympathy with the new and partly with the old. Our culture is in flux, and it is most important for social scientists as well as other persons to understand these changes and to do more research in this area. Only then, will we be better able to grasp the precise nature of these trends in the integration of our premarital sexual standards. This book is intended as a partial contribution to such understanding.






















1. For an informative account of our agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago see V. Gordon Childe, Man Makes Himself (New York: Mentor Books, 1953). For an equally insightful view of the changes which have occurred with the advent of civilization see Robert Redfield, The Primitive World and Its Transformations (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press 1953).

2. For a most insightful analysis of these characteristics and others of our society, see Robin M. Williams, Jr., American Society (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1956). See especially chap. xi, "Value Orientations in American Society," pp. 372-442.

3. In 1956, I asked one hundred of my students how they felt about the double standard, and over 90 per cent of them said they would prefer another standard, but many added that they would go along with the double standard since they did not want to try to "change the world." This is evidence of both the strength and the weakness of this standard

4. Kinsey and Ehrmann found that well over half of all virgins petted. Thus, our estimate of about half acceptance of petting seems to be a conservative one. Furthermore, some of the petting rates, such as petting to orgasm have doubled and tripled with those born after 1900, indicating the trend about which we are speaking. See Table I in this chapter.

5. An interesting study of the sexual behavior of ministerial students today can be found in Austin L. Porterfield and H. Ellison Salley, op. cit.

6. Alex Comfort, Sexual Behavior in Society (New York: The Viking Press, 1950), p. 99. Needless to say, Mr. Comfort is an Englishman.

7. One area of the double standard which would likely repay investigation is that of pregnancy. It is in our folklore (witness, Streetcar Named Desire) that often it is during a woman's pregnancy that her husband commits adultery. The lack of sexual relations during late pregnancy and the lack (at times) of desire on the part of the pregnant female may be responsible here if this is a valid pattern. Such a situation seems to support the double standard unless love becomes a factor which helps control the man and encourage the woman to be more satisfying to the man.

8. Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals (New York: Horace Liveright, 1929), pp. 90-92. This is an excellent and stimulating book in many ways.

9. The situation in the 1920's seems to fit Merton's description of anomie or normlessness. There was great pressure to engage in sexual relations and yet no acceptable way. The result was that rebellious and innovating responses occurred and we had the great sexual explosion of the 1920's. Merton, op. cit., chaps. iv and v.

10. For a statement of this finding, see Terman, op. cit., p. 321.

10a. Burgess and Wallin. op. cit., p. 330. The general findings here were in accord with the tables presented. Roughly 47 per cent of the females and 68 per cent of the males were non-virginal in this study.

11. Human Male, pp. 300, 416, 599, 603, and chart on p. 410.

12. Another study of similar age groups which also found the tendencies shown here is Harvey J. Locke, op. cit.; see especially pp. 136-37 and chap. vii passim. Note that in the Terman and Kinsey studies, although there have been vast increases in non-virginity, the percentage of non-virgins who indulge only with their future spouse remains almost the same.

13. Kirchwey, op. cit., chap. by Leavenworth. This chapter was written in the 1920's, and one can see how chaperonage and the "evils" of divorce were much more current then. For an article written in the thirties on the changes in the twenties, see: Theodore Newcomb, "Recent Changes in Atitudes toward Sex and Marriage," American Sociological Review, 11 (December, 1937), 659-67.

14. The most recent evidence on the growth of person-centered coitus is in the before-mentioned study by Winston Ehrmann. Ehrmann found that about one-half of the males and a smaller, though significant number of females accept intercourse when engaged. Ehrmann also found that if a girl was in love with her date, the chances of intercourse occurring were over three times what they were if no love was present. Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Behavior, chaps. v and vi.

15. Of course, a person's attitude cannot be discovered by simple direct questioning such as "What do you believe in?" Many people have not analyzed their own beliefs and do not fully know in what they believe. Others would answer differently depending on how well they knew the interviewer. The person who is asked "Is it right to go to church on Sunday mornings?" may well answer "Yes" because he has been taught that this is the proper answer, bot he himself may only attend a few times a year and feel no qualms about it. So it is with poople answering sexual questions. Most of them will give a recital of norms they have been taught. One must probe deeper and possibly use "projective" techniques such as asking their opinion of a hypothetical case of sexual behavior. This projective approach was used in my questionnaire study of high school and college students. For a most interesting discussion of interviewing see: Kinsey, Human Male chap. ii.

16. Human Female, chap. viii, especially pp. 321-24; Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., chap. xii, especially pp. 387-90; Terman, op. cit., chap. xii, especially pp. 321-23. For additional support, see Locke, op. cit., Ehrmann, op. cit., Foote, op. cit., and Ditzion, op. cit. For a review of research done in this area and all other areas in sociology from 1945-55, see Joseph B. Gittler (ed.), Review of Sociology (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957). especially chap. xi.

17. Several years ago an anthropologist from Harvard made a prediction in this area. He said that in three generations America would be sexually permissive, but he did not spell out the type of permissiveness nor the other features of such a change. See George P. Murdock, "A Comparative Anthropological Approach," Journal of Social Hygiene, XXXVI (April, 1950), 133-38.

18. For understanding ot this issue see: Harry S. Ashmore, The Negro and the Schools (Chapel Hill, N. C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1954); Harry S. Ashmore, An Epitaph For Dixie (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1958).

19. For an interesting forecast of our economic future, see Peter F. Drucker, "America's Next Twenty Years," Harper's Magazine, March, April, May, and June issues of 1955.

20. The opening fall college enrollment in 1959 was 3,402,297. This is degree-credit enrollment. See: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Opening Fall Enrollment in Higher Education (Washington, D.C., 1959). As of 1960, there were over eight million college graduates in America and about an equal number of people who had been to college but never finished. Each year about 300,000 people graduate from college. For predictions on education up to 1980, see: Current Population Reports, Series P-20, January 12, 1959, U. S. Bureau of the Census.

21. For a recent account of the 1920's, see Frederick J. Hoffman, The Twenties (New York: The Viking Press, 1955). See also Frederick L. Allen, op. cit., chap. v, "The Revolution in Manners and Morals."

22. For a recent coverage of this time period, see Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Roosevelt (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1957). See also John K. Galbraith, The Great Crash, 1929 (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1955).

23. In 1957, the median family income was $5,060. See Selma F. Goldsmith, "Size Distribution of Personal Income," Survey of Current Business, April, 1958, pp. 10-19. The median family income for 1958 was about the same as 1957-it was $5,050. This lack of increase was due to the recession of that year. See Selma F. Goldsmith, "Income Distribution by Size-1955-58," Survey of Current Business, April 1959, pp. 9-16.

24. The orthodox religions seem somewhat unintegrated with our emerging type of society and may themselves, therefore, undergo change. See Parsons, Social System (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1951), p. 516; and Paul B. Horton and Gerald R. Leslie, The Sociology of Social Problems (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1955), chap. viii, "Religious Problems and Conflicts." For evidence on more liberality in the religious view of sex, see McHugh and Moskin, op. cit. For a good over-all view of religion in America see: Thomas F. Hoult, The Sociology of Religion (New York: Dryden Press, 1958 ).

25. Some recent evidence on the power and influence of college graduates can be found in C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press 1956) and W. Lloyd Warner and James Abegglen, Big Rusiness Leaders in America (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955).

26. The Legal Status of Women in the USA (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1956), p. 99. Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and West Virginia, as of 1956, did not allow women on juries. Kinsey also gives evidence for more sexual conservatism in rural areas. See Human Male, chap. xii.

27. It is interesting to speculate what reception America in 1900, or even 1920, would have given to the "hula hoop craze" of 1958. The hula hoop, in one humorous way, symbolizes best our period of change and permissiveness.

28. For a discussion of erotic imagery, see Lindesmith and Strauss, op. cit., pp. 434-45. For a discussion of Kinsey's position on this point see chap. i in my book.

29. This emphasis on the buttocks can be seen in some of the Hollywood movies where the curve of a spinal column can bring immediate fame. Extreme protrusion of the buttocks can be found among the Hottentots in Africa and is called steatopygia. Among these people the buttocks may extend a foot or so out from the small of the back. For a picture of this see George P. Murdock, Our Primitive Contemporaries (New York: Macmillan, 1934), p. 478. The trend in this direction in American can be seen in advertisements which stress the ability of the girdle to "shape your derriere" with pads and "contour panels." See p. 30 of the New York Times magazine section of October 25, 1959. Should this fad catch on, we may witness a rivalry in falsies for the buttocks and for the breasts. For an advertisement for false buttocks pads see: Lawrence Langer, The Importance of Wearing Clothes (New York: Hastings House, 1959), p. 213.

30. This may also help explain why one of the few erotic images females may have is the male's hands. The hands may symbolize manipulation. Many  of my female respondents reported this erotic image.

31. See Jerome and Julia Rainer, Sexual Pleasure in Marriage (New York: Julian Messner Inc., 1959); Maxine Davis, The Sexual Responsibilitv of Women (New York: Dial Press, 1956).

31a. Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Behavior, pp. 58, 59, 215. Ehrmann found that girls initiated sex behavior about one quarter of the time. When in love this increased to one-third of the time.

32. Many people are concerned about how increased permissiveness will affect teenagers-how much permissiveness to allow to teenagers. But this is really a familiar problem for it exists in terms of drinking and driving too. Parents must decide how much autonomy to give in all these areas.

33. This equalitarian move is weakest in the transitional double standard, for this standard still maintains more rights for men in regard to body-centered coitus.

34. Since this is not a psychological study, I have not devoted much space to non-sexual, psychological motivations to sexual behavior, e.g., neurotic tensions which leads to indulging in coitus as an outlet. Coitus, being pleasurable, can be used as a compensatory mechanism for many of our problems. When a culture makes coitus "forbidden fruit" and at the same time teases its members by activities all the way from burlesque to television, then such conflict may increase the amount of neurosis and also may make it more likely that non-sexual tensions will be relieved by sexual relations. Thus, our double-standard customs may well encourage conflict and non-sexual motivation to coitus. More psychological study is needed to fully document this position. A good illustration of it can be seen in the Brigitte Bardot movie, And God Created Woman. It is significant that most reviewers saw mainly the "sexy" element in this picture and missed entirely the deeper message concerning non-sexual motivations to sexual behavior. See Time, November 11, 1957, pp. 121-22. Were sexual behavior more naturally accepted, it might be less likely to be associated with neurosis. Some analogous evidence for this can be found in the very low rates of alcoholism for Jews and other groups which accept drinking. Alcohol is less likely to be neurotically used in these groups. However, the case of France requires explanation-France has free drinking and high alcoholism rates. For recent studies, see Robert Strauss and Seldon D. Bacon, Drinking in College (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953), and Charles R. Snyder, Alcohol and the Jews (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1958). See also Hunt, op. cit., p. 107, for evidence on the repressive attempts of the early Christians leading to sexual obsessions.

35. It seems likely that, as industrialism spreads and individual choice of mate becomes more widespread, we shall witness in other countries the same growth of permissivenes in young people's interrelations. However, the permissiveness will likely differ for the various social stratum, just as is the case in America.

36. For a good selection of readings on Puritanism and a good bibliography, see Ceorge M. Waller (ed.), Puritanism in Early America (Bostion: D.C. Heath, 1950). For a statement of some "shocking" Puritan behavior see: Oberholzer, op. cit.

36a. Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Behavior, pp. 132-43, 169, chaps.iv, v, vi,  passim. Rockwood and Ford, op. cit.. p. 48

37. All societies have compensatory and evasive mechanisms which prevent change from occurring even when conflicts exist, but in this area, such mechanisms seem to have been largely exhausted, e.g., the rationalizations supporting our orthodox standards are not as widely or strongly supported as formerly.

38. We need more information on other socio-cultural determinants of sexual behavior besides standards-such as the desire to marry an upper-class male, the desire for money, etc., which can act as determinants of sexual behavior. Kinsey, Human Male, pp. 417-48, shows how the class one ends up in is more closely related to sexual behavior than is the class one presently belongs to. This indicates the importance of reference groups in determining both our standards and our behavior. The preliminary findings of my study of high school and college students tends to support this finding. This further stresses the importance of discovering how and when sexual standards are learned. Kinsey's evidence indicates that our sex standards are fairly fixed by age 16.

39. My current questionnaire research on college and high school students is aimed at obtaining more precise knowledge of standards. I am devising Guttman scales to measure degrees of permissability in sexual standards and also to measure equalitarianism. In this way I hope to add precision to the sexual standards we have examined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Home] [Acknowledgments] [Contents] [Introduction] [Chapter 1] [Chapter 2] [Chapter 3] [Chapter 4] [Chapter 5] [Chapter 6] [Chapter 7] [Chapter 8] [Chapter 9] [Chapter 10] [Bibliography]