|
Chapter Five
Permissiveness Without Affection
ALL SOCIETIES HAVE RULES AND REGULATIONS governing premarital sexual behavior, but, in many cases, requirements of affection are not among these rules. Usually there are requirements concerning the age of the participants; also, there are most often requirements restricting coitus to single individuals. Finally, there are minimal rules set up to take care of single pregnant women. Remarkably few women in such permissive societies seem to become pregnant.1 Since these societies do not have our cultural heritage, our notions of love and its connection with marriage, this situation is quite understandable. In American culture, such an affectionless standard runs into many difficulties. This standard is probably lowest in number of adherents of any of our four major standards,2 even though the recent equalitarian and rational trends in our culture have probably somewhat encouraged its growth. Americans have not been able to free themselves from their Puritan past enough to accept such body-centered coitus. This standard has most likely existed in Western culture for many millenniums as a minor "radical" custom.3
The adherents of permissiveness without affection in our culture place a very high value on physical pleasure. Their standard dictates that if a man and woman are physically attracted to each other, then they should be allowed to indulge and gain the physical pleasure involved. Some of these adherents add other qualifications. They require that both people fully accept such behavior and that precautions be carefully taken against such consequences as pregnancy and venereal disease.
There are two main kinds of believers in this standard:
(a) orgiastic—those who seek highly promiscuous coitus
with precautionary measures of secondary importance, and
(b) sophisticated—those who seek physical pleasure in a
more controlled and careful way.
ORGIASTIC
These people aim at pleasure in a more open and all-consuming fashion, and they relegate most other behavior to an inferior status. The extreme example of such an orientation would be the "high school sex clubs" mentioned so frequently in our newspapers in the early 1950's. Many of these accounts were fallacious, but some appear to be valid.4 For these "clubs" to be taken as representative of this subtype, there must be more than just impulsive, erotic behavior. If there is no shared set of values underlying the behavior of these teen-agers—if their behavior is compulsive —then it is a subject for a psychological, not sociological, study.5
My own research evidence and other evidence previously cited indicate that many people have taken a few sensational incidents of sexual promiscuity and exaggerated them out of all proportion. This is not to say that sexual behavior of a body-centered sort is a rarity—it is, in fact, quite common. But such behavior most often takes place in a double-standard setting wherein only the male's behavior is viewed as acceptable. It is relatively rare to find such behavior occurring, and being accepted, as right for both the male and female, as is the case in permissiveness without affection. However, this may be truer of the middle and upper classes than of the lower classes. For if Kinsey is right, then the lower classes have a larger number of people who accept the orgiastic standard. My own interviews among lower education- and occupation-class males does not fully support this. Most of my lower-class males were orthodox double-standard adherents. However, my questionnaire study of 1,000 high school and college students, does show good evidence of permissiveness without affection among the Negro students. More research is needed here to clarify the sexual standards of our lower classes.6 Permissiveness without affection may be strong among certain lower-class groups and quite weak among other lower-class groups. For example, as cited above, there is evidence indicating that Negroes have significantly higher rates of premarital coitus. This is particularly true for the lower-class Negro. Perhaps the very lowest-class groups have the most adherents to this subtype. Such groups lack permanent employment and have much less marital stability, which may encourage fewer restrictions on coitus before marriage. From a sociological point of view, it would likely be most rewarding to examine some of the above groups more closely.
SOPHISTICATED
The other major subtype of this standard involves a more "balanced" approach. In many of our cities today, there are people who accept sexual relations without affection as right and proper behavior because they feel it is "natural." These people do take precautions to avoid venereal disease and pregnancy. They are better classified as "pleasure lovers" than "revolutionaries." In my interviews, the sophisticated adherent was usually a well-educated bohemian iconoclast. My interviewees were mostly middle-class—perhaps in a lower-class sample a different kind of person might espouse the same hedonistic philosophy.
The sophisticated adherent feels that since men and women desire sexual intercourse, there is no reason why they should not have it. Sexual intercourse is viewed as natural and necessary, as akin to eating and breathing. It is further held that physical pleasure is justification enough for the act. Many such people would probably agree that their standard is opposed to our conception of love, but they do not particularly care. Some of them do not believe in love at all; those who do, feel they can have love in addition to their standard. They believe that some of their affairs will de-velop into love. Most of these adherents, however, seem more interested in transient pleasures with many people than in a serious love affair with one person. Sexual intercourse without affection is considered to be as good as sexual intercourse with affection. Many of these people insist that body-centered coitus is actually better than person-centered coitus, because it lacks personal obligations and is thus a "purer" form of pleasure. Here is the way Rene Guyon puts his position:
How many painful disillusions would be saved if, instead of thinking themselves obliged to say "I love you," men would content themselves with saying "I desire you." ... In the light of this analysis, individualized love scarcely differs from ordinary sexual love. All that distinguishes it from the love of two partners who deliberately embark on a purely temporary union is its slightly longer duration—weeks or months, as the case may be.7
The sophisticated adherent differs from the orgiastic in that, since he has other interests, he does not give as much emphasis to sexual pleasures. Since sexual intercourse is natural and like good wine, one should be careful not to "drink" too frequently, lest he become controlled by the act and unable to truly enjoy the pleasures involved. Precautions to avoid disease or pregnancy are perhaps more frequent, for these people are pleasure lovers and such occurrences bring pain.8
It is believed by many that all prostitutes accept permis-siveness without affection as their sexual standard. Many prostitutes, however, do not accept intercourse as being right for men and women. They often find their own professional intercourse distasteful. The desire to escape an unpleasant situation—very often low-income living—seems to be the major motive for girls entering prostitution. There are, of course, other motivations. Some enter because they are lesbians and want to live with other females; others are nymphomaniacs and become prostitutes to have sexual intercourse as often as possible. Emotional poverty is another important reason for girls entering prostitution. Some prostitutes marry later and often seem to adjust to marriage quite well.9 The men who visit prostitutes are probably not predominantly permissiveness-without-affection. They most likely are double-standard males who lack respect for the prostitute and believe her behavior is immoral. Thus, although such sexual behavior is lacking in affection, one must know the manner
in which the participants view this behavior, in order to determine if their standard is permissiveness without affection. A major purpose of the "four standards" approach is to enable one to distinguish among people who behave alike but who may differ sharply in the acceptance of their own behavior. Exact percentages are hard to obtain, but all four of our sexual standards would have adherents among prostitutes — even abstinence, although this should be the least supported, since it would lead to the most psychological strain. It should be kept in mind that prostitutes, too, are brought up in American culture, and our culture is strongly opposed to body-centered coitus for women. We would expect there to be many people, even in this group, who could not accept such behavior. These females still hold to their beliefs in other standards and feel disgust for the males who help place them in this situation.10
GENERAL INTEGRATION OF
PERMISSIVENESS WITHOUT AFFECTION
In our own culture, permissiveness without affection has never been a widespread standard. The entire history of Western culture is one of female subordination and restriction. A standard which allowed women and men equal sexual privileges never took hold. A single permissive standard violates the part of our culture which stresses the value of sexual intercourse and virginity. Our stricter religious tradition has always been opposed to such "free" sexual expression. Some religious groups still oppose all intercourse which is not aimed at reproduction and view sexual pleasure, even in marriage, as a sin. Permissiveness without affection is also not well knit with our marriage institution, since it encourages casual, temporary, body-centered relationships. It is probable that such relationships will usually not lead to marriage.
The notion of romantic love, as it has grown in American culture, is diametrically opposed to such a casual view of sexual intercourse or of one's sexual partner. Romantic love stresses the importance of the individual and places great value on individual personality traits. It is reasoned that if love is valuable, then so must be the love objects, and if people are so highly valued, one cannot treat them as casual sex objects. Sexual intercourse is associated with love both in marriage and before marriage. Our more tolerant attitude towards sexual intercourse between two people in love is a reflection of the associations we make between love and sexual behavior. Love justifies sexual intercourse to many people—to some only in marriage, to others at all times. But love is strongly associated with sex, and permissiveness without affection violates this connection.
Many Americans will accept body-centered coitus for men and prostitutes, but they will not accept it as a standard for all women and men. To do this would be to give formal approval to sexual relations lacking in affection. We want to have our cake and be able to eat it too. Body-centered coitus is allowed for double-standard males as a "behind the scenes" activity, but other standards are insisted upon in serious courtship. It is paradoxical, but it is the inconsistency of the double standard—its granting of freedom only to men —that makes it more acceptable to most Americans. The double standard can be informally accepted, for it is not in complete opposition to our formal code. But to openly accept body-centered coitus for both men and women would require giving up completely our formal code of abstinence.
Societies, as well as individuals, can be inconsistent, and for analogous reasons.
It should be noted that there are parts of the permissive-ness-without-affection standard which are at least logically, integrated with our culture. For example, this standard avoids many of the conflicts which the double standard entails. It does not conflict with our notion of justice because it treats men and women alike; it does not lead to a "virginity paradox" for it does not value virginity; sexual partners do not have to be sought away from home neighborhoods because coitus is acceptable for all; and it does not make one feel sexual behavior and sexual partners are "bad." In all of these respects, permissiveness without affection is generally considered better integrated with some of our basic values than is the double standard.
1. Low pregnancy rates may be due to the lowered fertility abilities of
teenagers; see Paul H. Gebhard et al., op. cit., pp. 32-33.
2. In a pilot study of over one hundred students which I undertook in
1956, I found only one full-fledged adherent of this standard. There were, however, a few other sympathizers. This study was done in Virginia. In my other interviews, the percentage of such adherents was also quite low. Bromley and Britten, op. cit., p. 104, found 4 per cent of the females accepted this sort of standard.
3. Such radical "pleasure philosophies" are quite common from the time of Epicurus to Jeremy Bentham. See Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1945). This work contains a good discussion of such philosophies.
4. The following book must be read with a critical eye. I mention it
only as a reference to be carefully and selectively read. S. U. Lawton, M.D.
and J. Archer, Sexual Conduct of the Teenager (New York: Derby Press,
1951). Such clubs held regular orgiastic meetings, some of which are de-
scribed in the above book.
5. For a most interesting and revealing set of case studies on the psy-
chological side of sexual behavior, see Benjamin Karpmann, M.D., The
Sexual Offender and His Offenses (New York: The Julian Press, 1954).
Dr. Karpmann's explanations are not sociological. He emphasizes instincts,
incest, and other Freudian notions and injects his own value judgments.
The cases are interesting, nonetheless.
6. For Kinsey's discussion on this point see Kinsey, Human Male, chap. x, especially pp. 382-83. Gebhard reports data on Negro women showing higher rates of premarital coitus: see Gebhard, op. cit., chap. vi, "The Negro Woman." If looser, informal norms are found at the lower levels, they may result from the fact that the social structure does not allow for easy achievement of formal norms, and thus these people devise other ways of getting what they want. This reasoning would apply to many other aspects of lower-class social behavior. See also Allison Davis, "Class Differences in Sexual and Aggressive Behavior Among Adolescents," in R. F. Winch and R. McGinnis, Selected Studies in Marriage and the Family (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1953), pp. 264-67.
7. One of the best elaborations of the sophisticated type of permissiveness without affection can be found in the source of this quote: Rene Guyon, The Ethics of Sexual Acts (New York: Blue Ribbon Books, 1941), pp. 372-73. For a brief summary of Guyon's views, see Rene Guyon, "The Doctrine of Legitimacy and Liberty of Sexual Acts," chap. Ixv, in A. P. Pillay and Albert Ellis (eds.), Sex, Society and the Individual (Bombay, India: International Journal of Sexology, 1953), pp. 429-37. For a defense of body-centered behavior of more recent date, see Albert Ellis, Sex Without Guilt (New York: Lyle Stuart, 1958), chap. v.
8. A fictional account of a future society that accepts permissiveness
without affection can be found in Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950)—a most entertaining book. In
current society, the Greenwich Village Bohemian is frequently a sophis-
ticated adherent.
9. Adler, op. cit.; see especially chap. iv. Miss Adler operated one of
New York's most famous prostitution houses from 1920 to 1945. Her
revelations about prostitution are quite interesting and informative. Her
over-all grasp of sexual behavior is limited, but she does know prostitution.
Chap. iv gives her answer to why girls become prostitutes.
10. For an intimate view of the prostitute, see Judge John M. Murtagh, and Sara Harris, Cast the First Stone (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1957).
|
