|
Chapter Three
An Objective Approach to Our Sexual Standards
NOW THAT THE NECESSARY FACTORS HAVE been clarified, we are ready to examine our present-day sexual standards more closely. Let me now quite briefly spell out what my basic approach will be.
Perhaps the best way to explain it is by showing what are believed to be drawbacks in the approaches taken by some others. Any newsstand display is convincing evidence that sex is constantly being written about. A closer look at the content of the vast majority of these articles reveals the level of understanding present. Most of these authors have little training in the social sciences; few of them are familiar with the studies which have been done.1
One should also note that contact with sexual activity does not necessarily give a person deep insight into such activity. Many prostitutes are quite ill-informed regarding the more profound aspects of sexual behavior. A recent book by a notorious madam indicated that even an intelligent human being, who for several decades was directly involved in supervising sexual activity, may not gain any special insight into such behavior.2 Perhaps this discussion can be summed up by saying that observation or participation in an activity, whatever it may be, does not guarantee understanding of that activity. The entire history of science can be viewed as the discovery of insightful ways of looking at the world.3 Man existed and so did the world for thousands of years before the sixteenth century, and yet very little in the way of science developed until scientists found a new way of looking at the world via Newton and his predecessors. In the twentieth century scientists have tried another approach via Field Relativity theory. All of these scientific viewpoints have paid off in increased understanding, in making us aware of many vital aspects of our world. So it seems to be in all scientific fields. Looking is not enough; one must know how to look, what to look for, and when and where to look. A good commonplace example of this is the person at his first sporting event. He "sees" as much as anyone, but because he does not know how to look, he understands very little. He does not know the rules that regulate the game. An organized way of viewing is essential to all objective understanding.
The social sciences—in which I include the fields of sociology, anthropology, psychology, government, history, and economics—are trying to find better ways of looking at human behavior, better in terms of gaining increased objective understanding. Thus, it is here that one should expect to obtain the formal professional training for understanding sexual behavior in America, for gaining the approach needed to find out the "rules of the game."
COMMENTS ON TEXTBOOK TREATMENT OF
SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
When one looks at the professionally trained social scientist or the person who has educated himself in the social science literature, he expects to find someone with a sound approach to the understanding of sex. This very often is the case as I shall later show by reference to several of the major researches. However, in one particular field concerned with sexual standards, the situation is not so satisfactory. This field is composed of the authors of the "Marriage and the Family" textbooks used in our colleges.4
I shall deal here only with one major criticism. Not all texts are "guilty" of this particular fault, and thus I have selected four as illustrative. Although representative of much of the writing in the "marriage and the family" field, the tone of these texts, in fairness, should not be generalized to all others.
Here are some quotations from these four selected textbooks:
It is difficult to make a strong case for premarital sex relations, for most arguments seem to stem from the rationalization of one's desire to satisfy his sex urge whenever he wishes without regard to the social experience of previous generations.5
Instead of its [premarital intercourse] being something through which love is expressed, something that is an essential part of a deep and growing oneness in marriage, it becomes only a means to satisfy an appetite.6
We have been reared to espect tenderness and romance in our love life and are unprepared for sex relations without genuine intimacy [such as occurs in premarital intercourse].7
The major if not the total emphasis of the premarital experience is self-centered sex gratification; physical techniques are developed which simply emphasize the one goal, satisfaction, or release from a physical pressure.8
The general conception of premarital coitus held by these social scientists shows clearly through their statements. They believe premarital sexual intercourse is an almost exclusively physical relationship, devoid of affection and tenderness, promiscuous and lustful. It is exactly at this point that they have taken up the popular emotions derived from our early Christian attitudes toward sex. It is here that their analysis is subject to criticism.
There is no doubt that much of premarital sexual intercourse is of a lustful and promiscuous nature. This no one can deny — most of the coitus under the double standard would probably fit this description. However, the important question to be answered is not whether such sexual behavior and standards exist; rather, it is how widespread this "body-centered" kind of behavior is and whether there are other, more "person-centered" kinds of sexual intercourse and sexual standards? The authors in question seem to accept abstinence as the only correct standard. This belief tends to prevent them from seeing any but the "worst" aspects of premarital sexual intercourse.9
(There is ample evidence indicating that many people have premarital sexual intercourse in an unselfish, affectionate, and psychically enjoyable fashion. Many engaged couples indulge in sexual intercourse, and the likelihood is that these couples will not have a purely physical, lustful, and selfish relationship. Moreover, many people who are not engaged, but are in love or extremely fond of each other, also engage in premarital coitus. Again, one hesitates to think of such sexual relationships in terms of the kind of behavior referred to by these social scientists. Let us now look at the evidence on this point from other more objective, social scientific research.
Research in the area of premarital sexual behavior is only about thirty years old. Although there are dozens of studies, they all are of a limited scope and do not give information relevant to all Americans. All of these studies are much more applicable to the white, higher-educated groups in our urban areas than to other segments of society. Furthermore, the past studies focused on sexual behavior rather than sexual standards, so that we must infer what standards were involved.
Nevertheless, science is an ever-continuing process and, although our information is scanty, it is most probably better than the hunches of the man in the street and can be quite useful if used with proper qualifications.
There are several studies which are generally recognized professionally as being representative of the best work in this area, e.g., the Terman study, the Burgess and Wallin study, the Kinsey studies, and the Ehrmann study.10
In addition to the studies named above and many others, I will refer to my own researches in this area as supplementary evidence. My own research is composed of hundreds of informal, impressionistic interviews and discussions, over the last twelve years, with college students and others concerning their sexual standards; and a more precise questionnaire study of about 1,000 high school and college students.11
The Terman study was published in 1938 and dealt with 800 married couples in California; the Kinsey studies were published between 1948 and 1953 and were based on interviews with 12,000 people married and single, from all over the country, but concentrated mostly in the Northeast; the Burgess and Wallin study was published in 1953 and consisted of 1,000 engaged couples from Chicago and a follow-through of those who later married. The Ehrmann study was published in 1959, and focused on 1,000 single college students from Florida.12 The Terman study included people born mostly before 1910. Kinsey's studies contained mainly people born between 1900 and 1930; Burgess and Wallin focused on those born between 1910 and 1920; Ehrmann dealt mostly with people born between 1920-30.13
All of these studies are subject to many criticisms in terms of sampling, types of questions asked, and other sources of error. They include too many college graduates and urban people, for one thing. However, these studies, plus others to be mentioned are the best sources of information available today. Used together, they seem to give us an adequate indication of sexual behavior in some major segments of America, such as the middle and upper classes. They are not primarily concerned with sexual standards, although such information can be deduced from them. As far as I know, this present work is the only book primarily concerned with sexual standards as well as sexual behavior. My own interviewing was concerned with sexual standards and will be used to supplement these other researches in this respect whenever feasible.13a The Terman, Burgess and Wallin, and Kinsey studies cover couples from California, Chicago, and New York, and in many instances, the results are strikingly similar. All three of these major studies showed that, in their sample of the people born after 1900, about 50 per cent of the women entered marriage non-virginal. Considering the geographical and time spans that separate these studies and their respondents, such findings are indicative of high validity. Another relatively similar finding is that from half to two-thirds of the female subjects who had engaged in premarital coitus reported they indulged only with the man they later married.14 Thus, it seems that the largest outlet for sexual intercourse for women was this affectionate, "person-centered" type of coitus. There is evidence from these studies that such behavior, although less frequent, is significant for men also. The vast majority of these people, engaging in this "person-centered" type of coitus, seemed to accept their behavior as correct, i.e., they believed in a sexual standard which allowed indulgence when in love. Therefore, one of the major standards of premarital coitus—one in which most non-virginal women seem to believe—is one which accepts intercourse as right predominantly when strong affection, love, or engagement is present. It seems clear, then, that our popular writers and many of our textbook authors have biased the over-all picture of premarital intercourse by almost totally ignoring this standard and the behavior which goes with it. Since our culture is predominantly double-standard, one can expect more women than men to fabricate about the extent of their sexual activity. Probably some women who stated they only engaged in sexual intercourse with their future spouse were fabricating; probably some women who stated they were virginal at marriage were fabricating.15 But, in general, the skill of questionnaire construction and the interviewers' techniques is demonstrated by the fact that, in all three studies, about half of the women admitted indulgence in premarital coitus. This is a most difficult admission to obtain from half of all women. The guarantee of secrecy and anonymity and the professional training of the interviewer obviously were helpful in approaching the truth. Thus, it is felt that, although there are undoubtedly errors in these studies, they may not be as great as might be supposed at first. One often gives strangers information he would never think of giving his close friends or family. These studies indicate something of American sexual behavior. To gain more exactitude, it would be necessary to study several million Americans in all walks of life, and no agency has yet set aside sufficient funds to undertake such a study.16
Since it appears to be established that many people engaged in person-centered coitus, what can be said about the characteristics of such sexual relations? Burgess and Wallin asked the engaged couples in their study who were indulging in coitus together whether they felt such sexual behavior had weakened or strengthened their relationship, why they felt as they did, and what feelings they had concerning their sexual relations in general. Over 90 per cent of both the men and women stated they felt sexual intercourse had strengthened their relationship; most felt that the reason it had was that because of the increased intimacy, their love for each other had increased. Ninety-six per cent of the men and 84 per cent of the women said they felt no guilt about their behavior. Many of them added that it afforded them great relief from physical tension.17
Keep in mind that these were engaged couples of mostly a college background from Chicago. Perhaps different groups of people would react differently; perhaps there was some rationalization and deception, but the evidence still clearly indicates that there are many people who have standards quite different from abstinence and who practice a type of intercourse which differs sharply from body-centered coitus. Thus, the presence of sexual behavior does not necessarily indicate that people are violating their standard of abstinence—it may well mean that people have a different standard which allows such behavior. Social patterns usually have cultural sources. One can be opposed or favorably inclined to premarital coitus of any kind, but one must recognize and fairly describe all the existing types and standards.
It is proposed that there are two basic types of sexual behavior which shade into one another on a continuum: (1) chap. xi. The Kinsey studies are one of the few studies to be based on interviews exclusively, rather than on written questionnaires. body-centered and (2) person-centered. The first one accents the physical aspects of the act, and the second emphasizes the particular person with whom the act is being performed.18 There are, in American culture, several sexual standards; some of these standards tend to accent and lead to body-centered and unaffectionate sexual behavior, and others of these standards tend to lead to person-centered and affectionate intercourse. Both kinds of sexual behavior and sexual standards must be considered in any significant analysis of sexual intercourse.
OUR APPROACH: STANDARDS IN
PREMARITAL INTERCOURSE
It is essential to any inquiry into premarital coitus to begin by listing all of our major sexual standards. Behavior alone is not enough, if one desires to understand the standards which regulate sexual behavior and compare the standards in terms of their social consequences and integration in our society. Regardless of whether or not sexual behavior is body-centered or person-centered, one needs to know if it is accepted by the individual involved. It is important to distinguish between two people who behave in the same overt way, except that one of them is doing what he or she feels to be correct and the other is violating his or her standard. This crucial information concerning personal or group standards is necessary in order to examine the consequences of coitus and thereby see how such behavior fits in our culture.
Knowledge of standards is also essential if one is to understand trends in sexual behavior, for such trends are related to changing standards.19 Standards help organize one's view of sexual behavior, as well as make a comparison of norms possible.
Past studies of sexual behavior have often stressed the psychological and biological determinants of such behavior. As a sociologist, my main interest is in the shared cultural standards underlying the patterns of sexual behavior which occur in society. By taking this approach, we do not deny the relevance of these other fields, we merely point out that our focus of interest is different. This is true of all science! —the interest of a chemist in a human bone may be quite different than that of a social scientist, but what both have to say may be equally valid. The sociological approach has been neglected, and it is this book's major purpose to remedy, at least in part, this situation.
When we speak of standards, it should be clear that we are not proposing that people actually think to themselves, "My standard is such that I believe premarital petting and coitus are wrong under the following specific circumstances." People are not so neatly or rationally organized. Rather, it seems that we have a hierarchy of values in the area of sexual behavior, and the balancing of these values determines one's standards. The values involved are love, pleasure, security, respectability, independence, religion, safety, and so forth. The relative importance of each is what constitutes a hierarchy or structure of values which, depending on the particular hierarchy, will support certain behavior as valuable and other behavior as valueless. Our standards derive from such sources, and thus it is easy to see that people are not always fully conscious of all the value-balancing which goes into their standards. Formal declarations of standards often overlook these more subtle aspects. This is especially true for newer standards which may be largely unconscious and not yet overtly formulated. In future chapters, some of the major "negative" and "positive" values underlying sexual standards today will be examined in order to better understand the nature of our sexual standards.
Logically, there can be three major types of sexual standards: one stating that premarital intercourse is wrong for both people; one stating that premarital intercourse is right for both people; and one stating that premarital intercourse is right for one participant but wrong for the other participant. Empirically, America has sexual standards which fit all three of these logical possibilities. All Americans are not fully conscious of these standards, but the standards are clearly evidenced by people's behavior and by a knowledge of our culture. Some of these standards are, to a considerable degree, part of our informal or covert culture, rather than part of our formal or overt culture.20
Our major premarital sexual standards are as follows: First, there is a standard of abstinence for both sexes as our formal or overt standard. This standard is closely tied in with our religion. It is a "single standard" since it forbids intercourse outside of marriage for both men and women. In sharp distinction to this standard are those single standards which accept intercourse as right for both men and women. The people who accept these permissive standards fall into two general groups: (a) those who accept intercourse only when there is a stable relationship with engagement, love, or strong affection present, and (b) those who accept intercourse when there is mutual physical attraction, regardless of the amount of stability or affection present. Both of these standards are informal standards which violate our formal code of abstinence, but are, nevertheless, acceptable to some groups of people. Finally, we in America fill in the last logically possible standard with the age-old double standard which states that men may indulge in premarital intercourse but women may not. The double standard is our most widespread informal standard. This conflict between our formal standard of abstinence and these other three informal standards leads to vast areas of confusion and conflict in our sexual customs.21
Even though many people may have tendencies toward more than one standard, most Americans can be classified as adhering predominantly to one or another of these four.
Here they are in summary:
1) Abstinence—Premarital intercourse is wrong for both
men and women, regardless of circumstances.
2) Permissiveness with Affection—Premarital intercourse is
right for both men and women under certain conditions when a stable
relationship with engagement, love, or strong affection is present.
3) Permissiveness without Affection—Premarital intercourse
is right for both men and women regardless of the amount
of affection or stability present, providing there is physi-
cal attraction.
4) Double Standard—Premarital intercourse is acceptable
for men, but it is wrong and unacceptable for women.
The second standard, permissiveness with affection, is seriously neglected by much of the present-day literature on sex! It is the person-centered behavior in accord with this standard which seems most at odds with the descriptions of premarital coitus given by our textbook writers today. Of the three informal standards, only permissiveness with affection is likely to lead to person-centered coitus. Permissiveness without affection and the double standard are most likely to involve a body-centered type of coitus. Permissiveness with affection is one of the more liberal and equalitarian standards which has developed in the last few generations.22 My approach, then, will be to compare all four standards as to their characteristics, consequences, and trends, in order to show their relative integration in our culture.23 I shall first describe and analyze the characteristics of each of our three permissive standards and then compare their integration in terms of social and cultural consequences. Finally, abstinence will also be analyzed to complete the picture of premarital standards in America.
WHICH STANDARD IS RIGHT?
The social sciences constantly examine the values of different cultures, i.e., what each culture feels is desirable and what each feels is undesirable. This is probably one of the most important areas of the social sciences. In the first chapter, it was shown how cultures disagree as to what is acceptable and unacceptable. There is also, of course, disagreement concerning such questions of right and wrong within one culture.
Let it be quite clear that a final answer to questions of right and wrong, decisions whether this or that culture is right, whether this standard of sexual behavior is right or wrong, cannot be made by sociology or any other science. Sociology can give one information on the consequences of a particular form of behavior—it can tell one about the relation of this form of behavior to other forms; it can give one full accounts of all the variables involved in the situation; it can inform one of trends which are occurring. But the final decision—the final statement: "This is the correct way to behave" cannot come from sociology.24 Such a final evaluation must be based upon one's individual values. Whether one's values are the best is a question on which sociology may help but cannot resolve. The sociologist's role is not to debate the pros and cons of an issue, but rather to examine the structure of an entire situation.
It is one's own values, applied to his knowledge of the situation which tells one whether he believes an action to be right or wrong. These values "weigh" the various consequences or aspects of the situation and, thereby, a decision is reached. Here is an example to show how several people looking at the same set of consequences, or the same situation, can arrive at different final decisions because of the different values they possess. Suppose, upon examining the question of contraception, all agree that if more people use contraception, the following will occur: lower abortion rates, healthier mothers, a higher standard of living, fewer unwanted children, and more violations of certain religious groups' beliefs. One person may look at these, and, because his particular religious beliefs are not opposed to contraception and he places strong positive values on the other consequences, his balance may come out in favor of contraception. Another person may agree with him, even though his religion is opposed to contraception, because he feels that the other consequences outweigh his religious objection. A third party may be opposed to contraception because, although he values the other consequences, he gives supreme "weight" to the fact that his religion opposes such behavior. Here, then, are three people who agree on the consequences, the factual aspects of the situation, but disagree on their final evaluation, because each holds different values, and because a certain value may be more important to one person than to another.
Now, can one prove that the person who abided by his religion was wrong—that he should have valued the other consequences more highly? Or can one prove that the person who violated his religious code was wrong—that he should have valued his religious code more? How could such a statement be backed up if it were made? All one could say is "I think, on the basis of my values, that such and such is more important and is the right path of behavior." But this is exactly what the other people would say. A more objective approach to such disagreement would seem to be to recognize that here we have several people who, even though they have examined all the consequences, do not agree on the relative importance of certain values. An individual may believe one position to be right, but he cannot prove himself to be correct.
However, this does not mean that one must constantly doubt if he has found the right set of values or whether or not there is such a set. It merely means that one recognizes the fact that his particular set of values is based on a faith that these values are an approximation to what is right. The sociologist can neither assert nor deny the existence of universally valid values.25 This is not an empirical question - it is a philosophical one which necessitates knowledge of what is good or bad.
Of course, we can examine our values for consistency with other values, and we can alter our values, and because of experience, place more weight on some values than we formerly did. People always believe that certain facts under-lie their values. We can objectively examine the facts which we believe underlie a particular value. Then we can reject, or reinforce, our values depending on how the underlying facts turn out and how we evaluate them. But there is still no objective way to prove one set of value weights to be the best.
The situation is really not so different from that in science. Science, too, is based on faith, i.e., on assumptions concerning the nature of the world—assumptions such as those which hold that the world can be known through the senses and that it is orderly. These assumptions cannot be proven scientifically, for before science is possible these assumptions must be accepted. Even a specific scientific theory has an element of faith in its acceptance, for, as has often happened, there is always the possibility of a better theory being devised. Thus, all our knowledge in science, as well as in morality, is based on faith in certain assumptions about our world.
1. See G. C. Schauffler, M.D., "It Could Be Your Daughter," Reader's Digest, April, 1958, pp. 55-58. This article is a good example of a doctor who is more moralistic than analytic. Similar articles by all types of people are not hard to find.
2. Polly Adler, A House Is Not a Home (New York: Popular Library
Editions, 1954).
3. For insight into the nature of science, see James B. Conant, On
Understanding Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951). For
more detail on the social sciences, see Robert M. MacIver, Social Causation
(New York: Ginn and Company, 1942). For more technical insight into
science, see M. R. Cohen and E. Nagel, Logic and Scientific Method (New
York: Harcourt, Brace Co., 1934), and W. P. D. Wightman, Growth of
Scientific Ideas (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953); also see A. N.
Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Mentor Books,
1948), E. A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science
(New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1954). The last two works are particu-
larly good for gaining insight into the development of science in the last
three centuries.
4. For an elaboration of this point, see an article by the author entitled, "The Treatment of Premarital Coitus in 'Marriage and the Family Texts, " Social Problems, IV (April, 1957), 334-38. See also the comments by the author in Edwin Diamond, "Young Wives," Newsweek, March 7, 1960, pp. 57-60. See especially p. 59.
5. R. E. Baber, Marriage and the Family (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1953), p. 596.
6. H. A. Bowman, Marriage for Moderns (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1954), p. 184.
7. E. M. Duvall and R. Hill, When You Marry (New York: D. C.
Heath and Co., 1953), pp. 134-35.
8. J. T. Landis and M. G. Landis, Building A Successful Marriage
(New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953), p. 143. For similar statements, see
pp. 222, 231, 304, in the 1958 edition.
9. For an interesting discussion by many of the authorities in the field, which shows clearly the confusion present, see Robert A. Harper (ed.) "Premarital Sex Relations: The Facts and the Counselor's Role in Relation to the Facts," Marriage and Family Living, XIV (August, 1952), pp. 229-38, and W. R. Stokes and D. R. Mace, "Premarital Sexual Behavior," Marriage and Family Living, XV (August, 1953), pp. 234-49.
10. For a book with excellent articles about all these studies see: Albert
Ellis and Albert Abarbanel (eds.), Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior (New
York: Hawthorn Press, 1960).
11. The more precise research on 1,000 students is only in the pre-
liminary stages of analysis. However, it will be used here whenever pos-
sible. Most of the students were from Virginia and New York and were
between 16 and 22 years old in 1959. Four of my students helped greatly
in this particular research: Ron Dusek, Martha Fisher, Richard Shirey
and John Stephenson. My more impressionistic research was done between
1948 and 1960 and was mainly of a "participant observer" type, i.e., it
consisted of conversations held with acquaintances, mostly without their
knowledge that I was investigating sexual standards. I spoke to a total of
approximately 1,000 individuals born mostly in the Northeast between 1920
and 1940, about 60 per cent of whom had a college education. Both of
these researches were exploratory in nature, aimed at finding out what
standards exist in the area of sexual behavior. The four major standards
discussed in this book, and some of what I say about them is derived from
these researches. I have also undertaken some smaller researches into this
area and will refer to them when relevant.
12. L. M. Terman et al., Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1938); A. C. Kinsey, W. B.
Pomeroy, and C. E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Phila-
delphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948); A. C. Kinsey, W. B. Pomeroy,
C. E. Martin and P. H. Gebhard, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female
(Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1953); E. W. Burgess and P.
Wallin, Engagement and Marriage (New York: J. B. Lippincott and Com-
pany, 1953); Winston W. Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Behavior (New
York: Henry Holt and Co., 1959). Another volume which we will refer to
frequently and which uses the data of the Kinsey studies is Paul H. Gebhard,
Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Cornelia V. Christenson, Preg-
nancy, Birth and Abortion (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958). Geb-
hard became the new director of the Institute for Sex Research when Kinsey
died in 1956.
13. The Kinsey studies, despite their drawbacks, seem to be the most
reliable and extensive of the studies done in this field. See p. 36 in Human
Female for a list of groups to which his study least applies. For an analysis
of its approach, see Cochran, Mosteller, and Tukey, "Statistical Problems of
the Kinsey Report," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol.
XLVIII (December, 1953), pp. 673-716. One of the best single sources for
analysis of Kinsey and sexual studies in general is Himelhoch and Fava
(eds.), Sexual Behavior in American Society (New York: W. W. Norton
and Company, 1955). The above article is contained in this volume. See
also: Donald P. Geddes and Enid Curie (eds.), About the Kinsey Report
(New York: Signet Books, 1948).
13 a. Other studies have dealt with sexual standards but not in any thorough or complete fashion. For example, see: Ehrmann, op. cit., chap. v; Dorothy D. Bromley and Florence Britten, Youth and Sex (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1938); Zemo D. Rockwood and Mary E. Ford, Youth, Marriage and Parenthood (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1945).
14. Terman, et al, op. cit., p. 321. Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., p. 330. Kinsey, et al., Human Female, pp. 286, 292, 299. Since Ehrmann dealt only with single people his study cannot be compared here.
15. Men, too, may fabricate their responses in the opposite direction
and exaggerate their experience, since that is our social expectation for men.
16. For a list of researches on sex carried on between 1922-47 with
help from the National Research Council Committee for Research in
Problems of Sex, see Sophie D. Aberle and George W. Corner, Twenty-
Five Years of Sex Research (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company,
1953). This is the organization that helped support the Kinsey studies and
many other well-known researches; but it, too, is limited in the amount of
financial aid it can offer. For a list and in many cases a description of past
studies on sex, see Kinsey, Human Male, pp. 23-34; Kinsey, Human Fe-
male, pp. 94-95; Ehrmann, op. cit., pp. 33-34; Burgess and Wallin, op. cit.,
17. Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., pp. 371-79.
18. It should be clear that person-centered coitus does not overlook the physical aspects of the act. In fact, at times in a love relationship, the act may be performed for almost pure physical reasons, but, and this is the key point, the act is still person-centered since the people involved know that this act is occurring in a context of a love relationship and the opposite person is still all-important.
19. See W. W. Ehrmann, "Some Knowns and Unknowns in Research into Human Sex Behavior," Marriage and Family Living, XIX (February, 1957,), 16-22. See in particular p. 22 where Ehrmann says: "The most astonishing void of all, however, is the almost complete absence of any scientific concern with sexual behavior and sex codes of conduct (the single and double standards)."
20. For a discussion of covert culture see: Arnold Rose, Theory and Method in the Social Sciences (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954), chap. xxi. There is ample evidence for such informal standards in the major researches on sexual behavior. The greater condemnation of women for sexual liberties indicates the existence of the double standard, while the presence of guilt-free intercourse among engaged couples supports the existence of a permissiveness-with-affection type of standard. Furthermore, historical study makes us aware of standards both new and old. My questionnaire study of 1,000 high school and college students bears out the presence of these standards in every respect. Finally, the direct questioning involved in my own informal research of the last 12 years was aimed at revealing the nature of our sexual standards, both overt and covert.
21. Two books affording some insight into our conflicting attitudes of abstinence and the double standard are: Albert Ellis, The Folklore of Sex (New York: Charles Boni, 1951) and Albert Ellis, The American Sexual Tragedy (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1954).
22. These four standards are put forth hypothetically. Future study may yield other standards or subtypes which may be applicable for certain segments of our society. A full discussion and elaboration of these standards follow in this book. It should be clear that I am interested only in heterosexual standards and not homosexual standards. As regards other cultures in the world, these four basic standards may well apply in general but have different subtypes and have different degrees of relative popularity, e.g., the double standard seems much stronger in South America than here, and permissiveness with affection much stronger in Sweden. For information on other cultures in the Western world, see: Ellis and Abarbanel, Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior, chapter by Ira L. Reiss, "Changing Sexual Standards," and passim. Geoffrey Gorer, Exploring English Character (New York: Criterion Books, 1955); Eustace Chesser, The Sexual, Marital, and Family Relationships of the English Women (New York: Roy Publishers, 1957); Arnold Rose (ed.), The Institutions of Advanced Societies (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1958); Allen Edwardes, The Jewel in the Lotus (New York: Julian Press, 1959).
23. The accent on relating these standards to each other and to their integration in our over-all society makes this approach basically a functional one. For a clear specification of the functional approach, see Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1957), pp. 46-60 especially; and Kingsley Davis, "The Myth of Functional Analysis as a Special Method in Sociology and Anthropology," American Sociological Review, XXIV (December, 1959), 757-72.
24. For a rather strong statement of this scientific position, see G. A. Lundberg, "Science, Scientists and Values," Social Forces, XXX (May, 1952), 373-79. See also the clear article by Frank Hartung, "Cultural Relativity and Moral Judgments," Philosophy of Science, II (April, 1954), 118-26, and the classic statement in Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955), App. 2, especially pp. 1059-64.
25. For a statement on universal values, see Clyde Kluckhohn, "Values and Value Orientation . . ." in Parsons and Shils's, Towards a General Theory of Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951). For an elaboration of the position taken here, see the paper the author delivered in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1956, at the Southern Sociological Meetings, "Sociology and Values: A Case Study," and the paper he delivered at the 1959 meetings of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex: "Personal Values and the Scientific Study of Sex." See also Abraham Edel, Ethical Judgment (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955), in particular, pp. 205-20.
|
