|
Chapter Seven
Permissive Standards and Negative-Value
NOW THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE GENERAL characteristics of our three permissive standards, we turn to see in what ways these three standards are integrated with five "negative" consequences of premarital intercourse — "negative," that is, on the basis of general American cultural evaluation. These five consequences are believed to be the major negative socio-cultural consequences of premarital intercourse. The existing literature usually does not examine all these consequences together — a more piecemeal approach is most often taken. An over-all examination will be undertaken here in order to more systematically show the degrees of integration of our three permissive standards with these five major consequences.1
There are many erroneous conceptions in this area; thus, although full evidence is not always available, it is worthwhile to undertake an objective analysis of the relation of consequences and standards. One of the main reasons for distinguishing so carefully among these three permissive standards of premarital intercourse is that it is believed that the social consequences of these conflicting standards are quite different. One cannot speak of consequences of premarital intercourse per se; to be clear, one must speak of the particular consequences of a particular standard of premarital coitus. This is the basic hypothesis which this chapter shall examine.
PREGNANCY
One of the age-old reasons for restricting female sexual activity has been the risk of pregnancy. The negative value of this consequence is a relevant part of our culture and well worth examining to see the relation of our three permissive standards to it. For centuries in Western double-standard society, people have desired to avoid illegitimate offspring because of the disruption such events could cause. Mothers have continually taught their daughters about the dangers of pregnancy. Some cases of frigidity seem to be aggravated by this fear.2 In most cases, however, the fear is not so extreme, but acts chiefly to create guilt feelings or as a deterrent to premarital intercourse.
First, it should be clear that pregnancy can take place only when the female egg comes in contact with the male sperm.3 Assuming two people have reproductive systems capable of producing offspring, the crucial factor is to ascertain the time period when the female egg and male sperm have the best chance of combining. This depends greatly on when the egg will be available for fertilizaton. Most all doctors agree pregnancy can take place in only three or four days of a twenty-eight-day cycle.4 Both the egg and sperm are believed to live about one or two days. Ovulation, or the formation and descent of the egg, usually occurs about the midpoint of the female's cycle. However, due to irregularity or other factors, one is never positive as to the exact time of ovulation. Nevertheless, the length of the fertile period at the outside, would be two days before ovulation and the day or two the egg may live.
Kinsey gathered information on 460,000 instances of sexual intercourse, both with and without contraception, and found that about 18 per cent of the females became pregnant and conception occurred once in every thousand times of coitus.5 If contraceptive measures had been more widely used, this rate would assuredly have been much lower. College-educated girls had a significantly lower rate of pregnancy, due in large part to their greater usage of contraception.6
What is the danger if contraception is used? The goal of contraceptive devices is to prevent the male sperm from meeting the female egg. Two of the most effective ways are the diaphragm-jelly or condom. Here is what Dr. Robert L. Dickinson has to say on their effectiveness: "The condom has in all studies demonstrated protection as efficient as any method, including diaphragm and jelly and, skillfully used, it furnishes security."7 In actual clinical tests, such contraceptive measures have prevented about 95 per cent of the possible pregnancies. Many more pregnancies could have been prevented if these measures were properly used.
For pregnancy to occur, the sexual act must take place during the few days of feminine fertility, the condom must usually tear at or near the point of ejaculation, and/or remedial measures must be ignored or ineffective. The likelihood of all these consequences occurring together is extremely small. Most pregnancies seem to occur because contraceptive measures are not used or are used improperly. Carelessness, desire for a change, or over-confidence are factors conducive to pregnancy. As Dr. Dickinson states: "Actual reports show that almost all unwanted pregnancies result from some omission of some detail or technique."8
There is now in process of perfection a pill contraceptive. In September, 1951, Dr. James B. Conant, then President of Harvard University, predicted such a pill would be perfected within ten years. His prediction seems to have almost come true. In 1957, oral contraceptives' research reported remarkable successes. The pill contraceptive, though far from perfected, is a reality.9 The entire process of fertilization is a delicate one; many chemical reactions must take place and many other events must occur for an egg to become fertilized. It is in these delicate*areas that a pill can throw off the balance and prevent pregnancy.
Some of the American Indians in the Southwest may have developed one of the first oral contraceptives. For centuries, the Shoshoni Indans have made a tea of the leaves of the desert plant, "lithosperum ruderale." This tea is used to prevent pregnancy. Recent tests on animals demonstrate this "tea" is an effective preventive of pregnancy. The ancient Hebrews developed the contraceptive methods which Francis Place recommended in the nineteenth century—perhaps the ancient Indians will be our source for the twentieth century's pill contraceptive. With this contraceptive pill, the chances of pregnancy are practically reduced to zero. The dangers of pregnancy seem more and more a thing of the past as man gains control over this phase of life.
Why it occurs. I think it can fairly be said that any two people who desire to avoid pregnancy and are willing to use the best existent methods can almbst always succeed. Thus, theoretically, it may be said that there is little reason for pregnancy to occur under any of the standards which have been discussed. However, tens of thousands of women become pregnant out of wedlock each year.9a Let us now examine how the three permissive standards are related to, and help explain, these pregnancy rates.
I shall begin' with the orthodox double standard. Were it not for fear of venereal disease, this standard might entail a great deal, more pregnancy. Many of my double-standard male respondents stated they used condoms solely to protect themselves from venereal diseases they feared their female partners may have had. Orthodox double-standard males have no particular concern for their sexual partners. Such men switch partners quite frequently and probably feel they can act as they like and that it is the "bad" girl's responsibility to protect herself from pregnancy. Some of these double-standard males know that the law states that marriage is a voluntary contract, and thus no man can be legally forced to marry a woman for any reason whatsoever. Furthermore, the law holds that if paternity is proved, which is not always easy, the man need but pay for the support of the child. The exact amount of money and time of payment varies. In some states, the total minimum over the years is a little more than $80.00; in other states it goes as high as $8,000. The minimum range would be between $1.00 and $40.00 per month for the care of the baby—a rather meager allowance but an expected one in a double-standard society.10
It seems that many of the females who indulge in sexual activity with orthodox double-standard males would most likely be permissiveness-without-affection adherents. An abstinent believer or a permissiveness-with-affection female may be involved, but these women would not be as likely to indulge in the type of casual sex affair which double-standard males desire. The permissiveness-without-affection females usually shift partners quite frequently, thus increasing their chances of running into a double-standard male who is careless and inconsiderate. Two factors, then, indicate that the double standard may lead to pregnancy: the lack of affection and concern between the sexual partners and the rapid change of partners.11
The situation in the permissiveness-without-affection standard is more difficult to ascertain. There is the same lack of affection and rapid change of partners. In actuality, however, it may yield different results. It is a more extreme social standard; it is less accepted and thus is more likely to attract radical groups. The over-all rate, however, may actually be less because of the effect of sophisticated adherents. These people seem to be quite rational about their sexual behavior, and because pleasure means so much to them, they want to avoid any possible pain such as pregnancy might entail. Furthermore, since sexual intercourse is accepted for both men and women, there is respect for each other; thus they may not be as likely to take chances which may lead to pregnancy. However, there is the possibility of higher rates in the permissiveness-without-affection standard due to a lesser stigma on premarital pregnancy.12 Only future research can test whether this is the case.
Couples who accept the single standard of permissiveness with affection would differ considerably from the couples in these other two standards. Since such people have strong affection or love for each other, changing partners would not ,be likely. There is rruich concern about the well-being of one another; each is unlikely to consciously bring harm to the other. Probably many precautions against pregnancy '•would be taken. Nevertheless, here, as in the other standards, there seem to be reasons and evidence to expect pregnancy to occur. Two people who are engaged in a long sexual relationship may, after a while, desire something new. They may become too confident of their ability to avoid pregnancy, or they may be engaged and feel they will be married soon. The security of the relationship may fool them into taking extra chances. Thus pregnancies do occur among this group of people also—although perhaps not as frequently as in the other two standards.13
Additional research is needed in this area to fill out our knowledge of how pregnancy varies by these three standards. For example, more information is needed on abortion and on the psychological reaction to pregnancy. One would expect the psychological strain and abortion rate to be least in the permissiveness-with-affection relationship since there is an affectionate bond and a possibility of marriage. However, one cannot be certain.14
VENEREAL DISEASE
This is an area heavily populated with "old wives' tales" inherited from our distant past. Just as we still frighten our women with tales about the dangers of pregnancy, so do we frighten them and our men with equally horrifying stories Concerning the effects of venereal disease. The case is very similar to that of pregnancy, because in both instances, previous to the development of modern contraception and modern drugs, many of the warnings about pregnancy and venereal diseases were much more valid. Venereal disease could lead to death, and in many cases it did. If syphilis goes undetected for about ten or fifteen years, it will often attack one of the vital organs, e.g., the brain, the kidneys or the heart. Any of these organs can lead to death if the disease spreads far enough. In many cases in the not-too-distant past, even if the disease was detected by the chancre or the rash which usually occurs within a few months of contraction, there was little that could be done. Syphilis was most deceptive, for the sytnptoms would disappear in a few months, and the unsuspecting victim would think he was cured, only to be destroyed years later when the germs attacked one of his vital organs. Gonorrhea was dangerous also, for it could lead to sterility and at times could also lead to a form of crippling if left unchecked.
By the turn of the century, some scientific cures for syphilis were devised. In 1907, Wassermann devised a blood test to detect syphilis. This was just two years after the syphilis germ or spirochete was identified under the microscope by two German scientists, Schaudinn and Hoffmann. Then, in 1910, Ehrlich and Hata developed an arsenic compound, salvarsan, that could cure syphilis. Later on, arsenic began to be combined with bismuth and mercury, but even then, it took eighteen months of painful treatment to cure most cases and damaging side effects were common. Progress in containing this disease was hampered by the general "hush-hush" attitude people took towards it. In the 1930's, when Surgeon General Thomas Parran of the U.S. Public Health Service wanted to broadcast a discussion of syphilis, one of our major networks cancelled his broadcast!14a
In 1943, the final break-through occurred. Dr. John F. Mahoney of the U.S. Public Health Service, in Staten Island, New York, announced that he had effectively eliminated syphilis in about eight days of treatment with a new wonder drug called penicillin! There was new hope for the millions of people in America who had syphilis. Like so many of our "new" drugs, penicillin was used in the form of molds by non-literate societies ages ago.
The figures tell the story of vast reductions in third-stage syphilis, in death rates and in number of people afflicted. Although penicillin could not restore destroyed tissues, it could cure "syphilis in almost any patient and in almost any stage!15 Here is what the Public Health Service has to say about the effectiveness of penicillin treatment in an extensive test study: ". . . 99% of the patients with primary syphilis and 98 % of the patients with secondary syphilis were successfully treated with penicillin."16 There still are, however, over 100,000 cases of syphilis reported to our health department every year. As of January 1, 1955, there were an estimated 1,921,000 persons in the United States who required treatment for syphilis.17 So, although we have come a long way, we still have much to do if we are to fully control this disease.
How the Odds Run. The situation with venereal disease, then, appears to be similar to that of pregnancy. There are good methods of prevention and cure that make it possible for a person operating under any sexual standard to avoid such consequences. The consequences, however, do occur. Let us look now to see which standard seems most closely associated with venereal disease.
It would seem reasonable to expect the body-centered coitus associated with double-standard behavior to be more likely to lead to venereal disease. In this case, since the male does not care about his sexual partner, he is unconcerned whether or not she contracts venereal, disease. He may have become infected himself from one of his "bad" girls and thus feel justified in giving the germ to another of his "bad" girls. The male's chances of becoming infected are high, because of his frequent changing of partners—the more partners, the higher the odds are that one will pick a female who has venereal disease.18 By not using a condom throughout the act of intercourse, a male may contract and transmit venereal disease. Of all the double-standard adherents, the female who accepts the transitional subtype seems to run the lowest risk of VD. However, even here, her double-standard lover may inadvertently transmit to her a disease picked up from his body-centered coitus.
Permissiveness without affection should also lead to a high risk of disease because of the constant change of partners. The orgiastic type runs an especially high risk of venereal disease, but the sophisticated type probably would be better informed on such matters. Males accepting this standard do not think ill of the female for indulging and may not be as carefree as double-standard men in exposing her to venereal disease when they can avoid it. This may put the incidence of venereal disease somewhat lower in this group. The adherents of permissiveness with affection, because of their feeling for each other, would be especially concerned to avoid infecting each other. Because they stay with one person for a long period of time, their over-all chance of contracting such disease seems much less than either of the two other standards.19 All these relationships are, of course, only hypothetical and must be further tested and refined, but they do indicate that this consequence also varies considerably by the-,standards of the adherents.
SOCIAL CONDEMNATION
Probably one of the major reasons many young people hesitate to engage in sexual intercourse is the fear of being condemned by other people.20 Our formal standard in America is abstinence; one would suppose that both men and women would fear social condemnation equally. But because our informal standard is the double standard, women are in general much more severely condemned than men.
The social condemnation which is directed mainly toward women varies a great deal according to the type of sexual act occurring. As a rule, the more permanent a relationship, the more a relationship involves deep affection, the weaker the social condemnation. Where the relationship is between a double-standard man and a girl he has just met, the girl is usually strongly condemned and the man is more or less tolerated. Many of these women would be permissiveness-with-out-affection believers. The very women who make it possible for a double standard to exist are thus condemned. Without "bad" girls, all orthodox double-standard men would be virginal.
Permissiveness without affection will, by definition, involve no social condemnation from its own believers. However, as we have shown, such a standard has never met with widespread acceptance. The females who accept this ultra-liberal standard will most likely, therefore, be sharply condemned by the people who reject such a standard.
Finally, permissiveness with affection, which also involves no internal condemnaton, should involve much less condemnation of the female from society at large because of its permanency and its incorporation of affection.
There are additional reasons which tend to alter the likelihood of condemnation of certain behaviors. Before an act can be condemned, it must be discovered. Under permissiveness with affection, because the two people are extremely fond of each other, they will not deliberately tell others of their relationship so as to invite condemnation. According to Kin-sey's study, the odds are extremely high against being discovered while copulating; thus, someone must always talk before social condemnation can occur.21 Since this standard does not involve rapid change of sex partners, it entails less people who may tell others of the relationship.
On the other hand, in the typical orthodox or transitional double-standard relationships, since the male has no concern for the female, he may feel quite free to talk about her. In fact, most of my double-standard interviewees spent considerable time telling their friends the details of their sexual relationships. The more such relationships, the higher the male's prestige is within his own group. Many girls find their reputations ruined as a result of this bragging process. Thus the double standard may lead to condemnation of girls of other standards. Some men go so far as to lie about their sexual exploits, so as to build up their status in their friendship cliques. This fabrication may be taken as the truth, and a girl's reputation is marred. Boys often apply this "smear" to girls who "tease." It is their way of getting revenge. Sexual intercourse to these males, is often a way of proving to themselves that they are virile and desirous and also a way of bringing their female partners "down" to their level. There is a sadistic element in this kind of sexual intercourse. Perhaps this is so because our culture forbids sexual coitus; yet, in the movies, on the stage, in books and in many other ways, it teases and tempts. This sadistic relationship can be further seen in the use of old, Anglo-Saxon slang words for sexual intercourse which also mean hurting or cheating someone.
Even if the double-standard male did not so willingly circulate the news of his sexual behavior, such news would be difficult to keep entirely secret due to the promiscuity of this standard. The situation is altered for that part of the transitional relations which involve love, but this is only a minor part of this subtype.
The rapid change of partners also endangers the secrecy of the sexual relationship between people who accept permissiveness without affection. Some of these people may be defiant enough to deliberately reveal their relationships to other people. Those who want privacy would find it difficult, for so many people are involved that it is probable that one of them would reveal the relationship. In this and other standards, it should be kept in mind that if one is living in a neighborhood where his behavior is accepted, then condemnation from outside groups may not be as disruptive as when one is a deviant in his neighborhood.
a) What's My Line? What about the condemnation which occurs because the two people believe in different standards? This is certainly an important part of social condemnation today. In a society as complex as ours, it is inevitable that people who do not think alike will come in contact. One can be sure that men and women will date people who hold different sexual standards. Such mixing of standards can lead to many complications.
A single-standard girl desiring to keep her reputation must be certain her sexual partner is not double standard, for if he is, he may likely condemn her for indulging and tell others of her behavior. This is particularly true for the orthodox double-standard male. A single-standard female accepting permissiveness without affection would be running the risk of condemnation if she indulged with a male who accepted only permissiveness with affection. Thus, avoidance of condemnation most often requires indulgence with a partner who thinks alike about premarital sexual activity. The problem here is in discovering the other person's attitude regarding premarital coitus. When the fact that some people deliberately try to deceive others about their beliefs is taken into consideration, the magnitude of the possible confusion is clear.
Young people today often discuss sex in their conversations, and this may be one method of finding out attitudes. Many men, however, may profess to accept a single standard of permissiveness in order to convince a girl to engage in sexual activity. Such attempted deceptions are not infrequent. It is felt, however, that the American girl today isis quite sophisticated-she is not often victimized by a "line" unless she wants to be. It is altogether possible that the American male becomes a victim of his own line, i.e., a female may act as though she believes a man who says "I love you" in order to make him think she would not have indulged unless she thought he loved her. As long as we are in a period of change, we shall experience these types of deception. If most people accepted one standard, there would be no need for so much deception, but without this, attempted deception is inevitable.
Since permissiveness with affection involves a relationship in which the "wheel processes" have been in action for a month or more before any sexual intimacies take place, this standard should enable one to be fairly sure of the other person's feelings. The other two standards do not necessarily involve such previous interaction between two people and thus have an over-all greater chance of developing a case of "mistaken standards."
Unlike permissiveness without affection, the person-centered behavior of permissiveness with affection is considered acceptable by all permissive individuals except an orthodox double-standard male. Accordingly, permissiveness with affection not only makes it more likely that the man and woman can detect each other's feelings about sex, but it further insures that, even if one should be mistaken, the chances of condemnation are smaller.
b) Religious Rejection. The relation of our religious institutions in America to our three permissive standards deserves some mention in this discussion of social condemnation. All of our major Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish groups condemn premarital copulation. Let it be clear, though, that premarital coitus is not adultery and thus is not part of the Ten Commandments of these religions. Adultery must involve unfaithfulness on the part of a married person and, as part of the Ten Commandments, it is usually viewed as more important than premarital coitus. Premarital coitus need not involve, and usually does not involve, a married person.
Our formal Judeo-Christian custom is abstinence by both sexes. It can be recalled that the early Christian attitude viewed sexual behavior as something sinful, something to be avoided. This was gradually modified to acceptance of sexual intercourse, but only in marriage. As stated earlier, the more fundamentalist religious groups today hold that even marital coitus should be solely for the purpose of procreation and that sexual intercourse for pleasure is sinful. The more liberal groups allow married couples the privilege of sexual indulgence for mutual enjoyment. But since no organized religious group in America permits coitus outside of marriage, all three of our permissive standards are at odds with our organized religions' formal code of abstinence. Religious beliefs do seem to affect our sexual standards and behavior. The more devout individuals are usually more conservative sexually. However, there are signs of a liberalization of religious attitudes regarding sex.22
The clash between religion and our permissive standards is not as harsh as one might at first think. Formally, Christianity opposes all premarital intercourse, but in practice the condemnation of women is much stronger than that of men. Abstinence for men has most often been paid only lip service. Judaism, too, has always had a double-standard orientation, although it formally forbids intercourse for both sexes. Look around at your fellow Christians and Jews and see how many fully accept a single standard of abstinence. Read carefully the passages in the Bible and you will find further evidence of the close place the double standard has in our religious institution.23
When one examines permissiveness without affection, it becomes apparent that such a standard is most poorly integrated with our religious institution. Such a standard is too openly pleasure-seeking to fit with our religion. Despite our more liberal attitudes toward sexual behavior, the pull of the past is most clearly seen in the still strong negative feeling toward body-centered coitus. We are still part Puritan.
Permissiveness with affection presents an anomalous situation. Here is a standard which stresses deep affection amongst human beings-a standard which disapproves of promiscuous sexual behavior, a standard which incorporates our notions of the value of love and monogamy, and one which treats both men and women as equals. Is the double standard better integrated with our religion than this standard? The double standard stresses promiscuous affairs and treats people as a means for satisfying one's desires; it violates our notions of justice in its treatment of women; it opposes our norms of love and monogamy by stressing body-centered coitus and rapid changes of partners. Is this standard more compatible with the Judeo-Christian religion than permissiveness with affection? In fairness, one must say that the double standard is much less compatible with many vital aspects of our organized religion. Then why is it more accepted by Church members?
There are many reasons why so many people find the double standard more acceptable, despite its incompatibility. For one thing, it has the strength of age and general acceptance behind it. As in business, there is nothing that succeeds like success-so in society, there is nothing that gains acceptance like acceptance. However, just as important is the fact that the double standard can be hushed up-it can be acknowledged by knowing glances and winks, but it need not be written in the formal religious code. The double standard can be accepted because it can be hidden and kept out of sight on Sunday mornings. This could never be the case for permissiveness with affection. This standard could not be hushed up or swept "under the carpet." It is directly opposed to the single standard of abstinence. To accept it would mean that the double-standard positions to which many people adhere today would have to be revealed and altered. We would formally and openly have to reject abstinence and the double standard and formally accept permissiveness with affection. Most people would rather keep their precarious position than reveal it. People are accustomed to such "evasions." Thus, our religions, although in many ways closer to permissiveness with affection than to the double standard, are still opposed to any change in this direction.24
GUILT FEELINGS
a) Society-The Magic Mirror. The popular and textbook literature on sexual behavior contains statements concerning the strength of guilt feelings and the terrible toll such psychological reactions take from our young people. Such broad statements about shrouds of disaster are more the echoes of nineteenth-century Victorianism than the sound of twentiethcentury science. What must be discovered now is how Americans do feel about premarital intercourse. Do people who engage in such behavior suffer from guilt feelings? Basically, the question is, how do our permissive standards relate to this negative value of guilt feelings?
The first deducible point is that men as a group would probably suffer less from guilt feelings than women.25 Since our culture is predominantly double standard, this should be the case. Guilt feelings are to a large extent the individual's reaction to social condemnation which he accepts. In short, one feels guilty because he is looking at himself through the "eyes" or attitudes of those people in our culture who would condemn him. As a rule, the more an act is socially condemned, the more people will feel guilty when performing it. This, of course, has exceptions-some people may not be concerned with the opinion of many other groups, and, therefore, may not look at themselves through these people's eyes; such people may have other reference groups through which to evaluate their own behavior. Innovators, deviants, and martyrs are people who do not judge themselves by the general opinions but refer their behavior to other standards.26
None of our three permissive standards seem likely to lead to excessive guilt feelings for their adherents. The double standard, however, may lead to some qualms, since it is often viewed by its adherents as an evasion of abstinence. Logically, no full believer in permissiveness with or without affection should experience guilt feelings; by definition, one must believe such action to be right before he is classified as a believer. Nevertheless, the fact that society reacts more strongly against permissiveness without affection means that it will be more difficult for people to accept such a standard fully without serious qualms-more difficult than it would be to accept permissiveness with affection which is not so strongly condemned. A person may indulge in coitus with his or her fiance or lover and may find that neither feels too guilty about such behavior. Such a reaction could in time alter the person's intellectual and emotional belief. In our society, this change to acceptance is probably more likely to occur in person-centered coitus.
b) Choose Your Mirror. Research evidence indicates that most young people who engage in premarital coitus do not act strongly against their notions of right and wrong. This seems to support our above analysis. Kinsey found that of the thousands of women he interviewed who had engaged in premarital coitus, over two-thirds expressed no regret at all about their premarital sexual behavior and almost 90 per cent said they had no major regret. In the case of men, the lack of guilt feelings was even higher. Furthermore, Kinsey found that the greater the number of years one engaged in premarital coitus, the less regrets felt. Women who had at least some of their coitus with their fiances had the least regret.27 In addition to this evidence, 84 per cent of the engaged women and 96 per cent of the engaged men in the Burgess and Wallin study did not express any guilt feelings about their sexual intercourse with each other.28 All these findings seem to support the contention that the people least likely to be bothered by coitus are most likely to indulge (selfselection). It also supports the notion that the longer one engages in coitus, the more likely one's qualms are to disappear. Finally, it seems to indicate that the person-centered coitus which accompanies permissiveness with affection or the transitional subtype of the double standard are the easiest standards for women to accept without guilt feelings. In conclusion, these figures indicate that, for the above reasons, strong feelings of guilt may not be as widespread as some writers would have us believe.
There is no doubt that some people suffer quite serious consequences from guilt feelings. I do not wish to minimize this consequence. If one tries to alter his beliefs too rapidly, he may indeed suffer strong qualms. Strong abstinence believers are likely to suffer from very disturbing guilt feelings. Furthermore, I do not want to deny that there may be other psychological consequences not covered by the terms "regret" or "guilt."29 A person, for example, may have felt quite despondent about engaging in premarital copulation but may feel that there is no point in regretting it. Another person may have suppressed all guilt feelings about premarital intercourse from consciousness. A girl may feel bothered by the necessity to hide her non-virginity from people who would disapprove. There is serious need for a detailed analysis of the personality consequences of premarital intercourse of all types. 30
WEAKENING OF MARRIAGE
a) Tendency toward Adultery. It is believed by many that one major way in which premarital coitus weakens the marriage institution is by leading to extramarital coitus (adultery). Let us now see if we can ascertain how our three permissive standards relate to this consequence. It is known that a higher percentage of people who engage in premarital coitus seem to engage in extramarital coitus. In the Kinsey study, 29 per cent of the women who engaged in premarital coitus had also engaged in extramarital coitus; 13 per cent of the women who had entered marriage virginally had extramarital coitus.31 It is not known whether all or one type of premarital coitus is so conducive to extramarital coitus, or whether none of these is causally related and other factors explain this connection. Kinsey found that by the age of forty, about one out of every four wives and one out of every two husbands in his sample had engaged in extramarital coitus.32
The evidence indicates that extramarital coitus occurs for a multitude of reasons, and the fact that one had experienced premarital intercourse, in and of itself, may not be the most significant of these reasons. Correlations must be carefully interpreted to be able to grasp their full causal implications.
Kinsey lists several reasons for adultery, such as desire for revenge, to raise social status, to assert independence, and so forth.33
It may be that part of the reason people who have had premarital coitus also engage in extramarital coitus is that they are more liberal; when they fall out of love with their mates, they are more likely to commit adultery before obtaining a divorce. Thus, lack of conservatism may explain some of this behavior. One need not look for a full causal connection, by any means, between all premarital and extramarital coitus.
A person whose premarital standard is the double standard generally believes that men should be allowed greater sexual freedom; thus, this standard may be extended to apply to extramarital coitus also.34 Some wives tolerate their husband's episodes, and some husbands engage in these episodes, believing that they are all right for men, although unforgivable for women.35
Women often find it difficult to understand how a man who loves his wife can engage in extramarital coitus. For a double-standard man, this is not difficult. For such a man, the trite saying "I love my wife, but oh you kid!" seems to have much meaning. These men separated sexual behavior and affection in their premarital coitus; it is therefore not difficult for them to engage in extramarital coitus purely for pleasure. Such a man could love his wife but engage in coitus with another woman without lessening his feelings for his wife.36
Many double-standard males engage in sexual activity with "bad" girls while going with a "good" girl. They want to avoid intercourse with the "good" girl so they relieve themselves with the "bad" girl. Some girls tell their boyfriends or fiances to engage in this type of coitus in order to keep themselves chaste. Here are verbatim reports from some engaged couples:
FlANCEE: We talk about sex frankly. I don't think it's straining him not to have intercourse. There are other methods of relief. There are other women. The only objection I have is that he might contract some sort of disease.
FlANCE: She believes it's the prerogative of the girl not to have sexual intercourse until she is married. Although I agree with her, I would have intercourse if she wanted to. It hasn't been a strain because I go out and get what I want, and she knows it. She doesn't mind. Her attitude is that men have to have it.
FlANCE: It was not only with her knowledge but permission. I was rather emotionally and physically wrought up, and we realized that intercourse was the only outlet. It was impossible for her, so with her permission I went to a prostitute.37
This sort of training may well be conducive to double-standard extramarital intercourse in later years. Orthodox doublestandard men and women engaged to be married are in a real dilemma. If the man has intercourse with his fiancee, he may lose respect for her, and she may feel quite guilty; if they abstain with each other, the man may seek satisfaction elsewhere and provide a basis for later infidelities. Once again the conflict generated by this standard evidences itself.
Finally, one may note that when the double-standard man engages in extramarital coitus, he may thereby disrupt his marriage, and his wife may look for another sexual partner in order to get revenge. Revenge was one of the important reasons that women gave to Kinsey for adultery. Thus the double standard may encourage both male and female to seek extramarital coitus.
Since permissiveness without affection, like the double standard, separates sexual behavior and affection, it fails to build up a self-control structure based on the higher worth of person-centered coitus. But this standard does avoid many of the above difficulties of the double standard. Adherents of this standard may believe that body-centered coitus and its attendant pleasures need not be given up because of marriage and, therefore, they may accept extramarital intercourse for both husband and wife. In its extreme form, this may come out as a "wife-swapping club."38 Of course, this need not be the case. Such adherents could accept a code of marital fidelity for both husband and wife, thereby altering their older and freer premarital sexual standards.
There are many aspects of permissiveness with affection which work against adultery. This standard builds up a respect for a monogamous, meaningful heterosexual relation. It helps a person develop self-control and self-respect in the sexual sphere, due to its person-centered nature and its association of intercourse with qualities of affection. Theoretically, such sexual behavior should lead to better marital sexual adjustment; therefore, there should be less reason for one to desire extramarital coitus.39 Nevertheless, by emphasizing love, this standard may make one feel that when love has gone out of a marriage, adultery is permissible, even if the divorce is not yet final.
In summary, I would hypothesize that although any of these permissive standards may lead to adultery, I would expect that permissiveness with affection would do this least often in a marriage where love was still involved. Finally, I would reiterate that there are many other reasons for adultery which must be examined to fully understand this behavior.
c) The End of Marriage? In a time of rapid change, there are always people who forecast the end of civilization and other major disasters as the inevitable result of rapid change. One very common assertion made in regard to premarital coitus is that, as our society accepts sexual permissiveness, it is, at the same time, destroying our marriage institution.40 Why will people marry if they can obtain sexual intercourse outside of marriage?-so the reasoning goes.
This assertion assumes that people marry predominantly to satisfy their sexual appetites. This is a rather naive view of marriage. If one only desires sexual intercourse, that can quite easily be obtained outside of marriage, as most young people today have proven by their own behavior. The Greeks gave full endorsement to the double standard and allowed their men to have premarital intercourse and extramarital intercourse, and still their marriage institution remained well intact. In our own country, most men have had the privilege of premarital coitus for several centuries, and yet they continue to marry. Many non-literate cultures allow extensive sexual freedom and continue their marital institution.
What occurred to marriage when premarital coitus increased so rapidly in this country? Did marriage decline- did people marry later or less frequently? No; in fact, just about the opposite situation occurred. In 1890, the proportion of the population, over the age of fifteen, which was married at any one time was about 55 per cent; by 1940, it had risen to over 60 per cent, and by 1955, to about 70 per cent.41 Over 92 per cent of our population who were between the ages of 45 and 54 in 1955 had been or were married.
Since the turn of the century, there seems to have been a general trend toward earlier marriages rather than later marriages. This trend was accelerated after 1940, but shows definite signs of stopping at the present time. As of 1955, about 50 per cent of the men that do marry were married by the age of 23, and about 50 per cent of the women that do marry were married by the age of 20. This earlier marriage trend is largely responsible for the increases in the number of people married at one particular time. We marry on the average about three years earlier than we did in 1900. This information should make it clear that the vast increases in premarital coitus do not seem to have lessened the number of marriages nor encouraged later marriages.42 If, in time, premarital coitus were to encourage later marriages by removing some of the purely sexual impulsion, it might well increase marital adjustment. Such later marriages would be between more mature people who might have better chances for achieving marital success.43
Premarital intercourse may be related to marriage, in the sense that it weakens the "frustrated" sexual motive for marriage.44 Thus, the only cases wherein premarital coitus could eliminate marriage would be in those instances where there were only sexual motives for marriage. The "reward" would be granted before the price was paid, and if this "reward" were the only thing desired, why should one pay the price of marriage after engaging in intercourse? This attitude, however, involves the type of relationship most Americans would want disrupted. Our social norms do not approve of marriages between people who are only sexually interested in each other or who are being rushed into marriage by their impatient desire for coitus.
Sexual intercourse before marriage does not destroy the major motives for marriage.45 It is interesting to note that very often the same people who fear premarital coitus will do away with marriage also state that they think permissiveness will encourage early marriage, by involving people with one another at early ages. They fail to see the conflict in these two views and use each whenever desired. People marry in our culture predominantly because they are in love. This love feeling is supposed to be a blending of personalities46 and not just a union of bodies. Most people, not all, need other people to complete themselves. Marriage in our culture enables two people to help each other fulfill their potentialities. Perhaps the highest reward of love is the intimacy and the resultant self-knowledge which it affords. Marriage gives one a chance to reveal to another human being his innermost thoughts and feelings. It affords the opportunity of entering into such a mutually fulfilling relationship for life. It contains the added security of social approval and many other satisfying features, such as bearing and rearing children. The point here is that it is the incompleteness of the individual, and his desire for a secure, socially supported, permanent relationship with someone he or she loves, which still is the main motive for marriage in America. Marriage will surely exist in America whether or not premarital coitus is allowed.
SUMMARY OF THE NEGATIVE-VALUE CONSEQUENCES
In examining these negative-value consequences, one can see how the likelihood of a consequence occurring varies with the three permissive standards. In other words, some of these standards are more closely integrated or associated with these aspects of our culture than others. More information is vitally needed, regarding the evidence of these associations, to see just what causal relations do exist. There is also a need for further knowledge as to how social variables (education, income, ethnic group, etc. ) are associated with these three standards. One would expect each standard to be strongest among those groups who are most willing to accept the kind of consequences which go along with the standard. The existing evidence indicates that permissiveness with affection is more of a middle- and upper-class standard, while the double standard is stronger at lower educational and occupational levels. Permissiveness without affection also seems to be strong at these lower levels, but the evidence here is more ambiguous and it may also be powerful at a few very high social levels. What has been said here concerning the association of consequences and standards in our urban-industrial society is more suggestive than conclusive.
1. The consequences in this and the next chapter are similar to the list of pro and con arguments contained in Kinsey, Human Female, pp. 307-10. However, these consequences are examined here for descriptive and analytic purposes, not for argumentative purposes. 1/1 f.
2. Lena Levine, M.D., and Mildred Oilman, Frigidity (New York:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 1951). Fear of pregnancy is
one of the important causes of frigidity discussed in this pamphlet.
3. A good source for the person who desires general understanding of
pregnancy and contraception, plus the opportunity to follow through on
most topics of interest with many valuable illustrations is Robert L. Dickinson, M.D., Atlas of Human Sex Anatomy (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Company, 1949). See his Techniques of Conception Control which is also useful in informing one about pregnancy and its prevention. Dr. Dickinson was a world-famous gynecologist. He died at the age of 90 in 1950. He was a former president of the American Gynecological Society. The most recent source of information on pregnancy, birth, and abortion is the third volume from the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University: Gebhard, op. cit. Gebhard's study uses the interview data which the other Kinsey volumes also drew upon.
4. For a brief account of these processes, see Becker and Hill, op. cit.,
chap, x, "Taking Physical Factors into Account," by Edgar S. Gordon,
M.D., pp. 305-40. See also Berg and Street, op. cit., chap, xiv, "Theory of
the Safe Days"; also Dickinson, Techniques of Conception Control, pp. 37-
40. For more detailed information on fertility and sterility, see John Rock,
M.D. and David Coth, M.D., Voluntary Parenthood (New York: Random
House, 1949).
5. Kinsey, Human Female, p. 327. See also Gebhard, op. cit., p. 39;
chap, iii contains a breakdown of pregnancy rates for single women.
6. Gebhard, op. cit., pp. 45-47.
7. Dickinson, Techniques of Conception Control, p. 24. An excellent source for a historical account of the development of contraception is Norman E. Himes, Medical History of Contraception (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co., 1936). Himes covers thoroughly the famous handbill of Francis Place, in 1823, wherein Place recommended using the douche and a sponge on the cervix to control the rising birth rate of England. Attempts to suppress this and other contraceptive information only led to more publicity and interest. By 1880, after the famous Brad-laugh-Besant trial, most industrial countries began to use contraception to control their population, e.g., England's birth rate was cut in half between 1876-1936. See Warren S. Thompson, Population Problems (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1953), p. 162. The diaphragm and rubber condom came into use about the same time this birth-control movement took hold. Other interesting literature on this topic can be obtained from the Planned Parenthood Federation, 501 Madison Avenue, New York City. Probably the most remarkable usage of birth control is found in Japan, where the birth rate was cut in half in the ten years from 1947 to 1957! See Statistical Bulletin, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, XL (September, 1959), 6.
8. Ibid., p. 6.
9. A popular account of birth control by pills appeared in the October
7, 1952, issue of Look Magazine. A scientific account can be found in Paul
S. Henshaw, "Physiologic Control of Fertility," Science, CXVII (May 29,
1953), 572-82. The more recent statements come from Dr. Rock, Dr.
Garcia, and Dr. Pincus, of the Worcester Foundation for Experimental
Biology, and from Dr. A. Q. Maisel's work in Puerto Rico. See A. Q.
Maisel, M.D., "New Hope for Childless Women," Ladies' Home Journal,
August, 1957, and Gregory Pincus, M.D., C. R. Garcia, M.D., and J.
Rock, M*.D., "Effects of Three 19-nor Steroids on Human Ovulation and
Menstruation," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, LXXV
(January, 1958), 82-97.
9a. In 1957, there were 201,700 reported births out of wedlock. Since most premarital pregnancies end in abortion and many such births are not reported, this figure only gives one a vague idea of the number of premarital pregnancies. Almost two-thirds of the 201,700 births were to nonwhites. Such groups abort less often and may therefore have these higher rates. See mimeographed publication of U. S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, May 1, 1959 and Gebhard, op. cit., chaps, iii and vi.
10. Summary tables on the laws concerning sexual behavior in each
state can be found in Robert V. Sherwin, Sex and the Statutory Law (New
York: Oceana Press, 1949). It is interesting to note that of the 48 states
examined, 14 states do not classify fornication as a crime, and 5 do not
classify attultery as a crime. In several other states the fines for such
offense are minor, e.g., ten or twenty dollars.
11. See Kinsey, Human Male, pp. 561-62 and Kinsey, Human Female,
p. 332, for support of this contention.
12. This pregnancy rate, of course, applies only when one is speaking
of two permissiveness-without-affection people engaging in coitus together.
Pregnancy rates would possibly go up, as previously noted, if a permis-
siveness-without-affection female engaged in intercourse with a double-
standard male.
13. There is some evidence from Kinsey and Gebhard to support this
view. Gebhard states lower pregnancy rates for college girls and more
acceptance of person-centered coitus by the college group. This, of course,
is not proof of my contention, but is rather merely suggestive. See Gebhard,
op. cit., pp. 45-48; Kinsey, Human Male, pp. 561-62 and Kinsey, Human
Female, p. 332. Also, Gebhard reports 89 per cent of white premarital preg-
nancies ended in abortion. This may be evidence that most pregnancies do
not come from permissiveness with affection—those relations often lead
to marriage rather than abortion.
14. Some women have several illegitimate offspring and do not seem to express regret. See Maud Morlock and Hilary Campbell, "Maternity Homes for Unwed Mothers" (Children's Bureau Publications, No. 309, 1946); Ruth Reed, The Illegitimate Family in New York City (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934). Reed found 15 per cent of her sample had previous illegitimate offspring. Gebhard, op. cit., p. 40, found 19 per cent had previous illegitimate children. Kinsey, Human Female, p. 318, reports numerous women lacking regret over pregnancy. An excellent bibliography can be found in: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Selected References on Services for Unmarried Mothers (U. S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, 1959).
In regard to abortion, all we know now is that most illegal abortions are performed on married, not single, women and that the total number is up in the hundreds of thousands per year. See: Mary S. Calderone, M.D. (ed.), Abortion in the United States (New York: Harpers, 1958), p. 180, who estimates between 200,000 and 1,200,000 abortions per year. See also H. C. Taylor, Jr., M.D. (ed.), The Abortion Problem (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Company, 1944). Taylor estimates that up to 90 per cent of abortions are performed on married women. There is also evidence that Negro women have more premarital pregnancies but proportionately less abortion than white women, thus indicating a lesser stigma on such pregnancy. See Gebhard, op. cit., pp. 155-62.
14a. Harvey Locke, "Changing Attitudes Toward Venereal Diseases," American Sociological Review, IV (December, 1939), 836-43. This article is a good historical review.
15. There are many lengthy accounts of this disease but few good
brief ones. One of the best short essays on syphilis can be found in E.
Barnouw and E. G. Clark, M.D., Syphilis: The Invader (Public Affairs
Pamphlet No. 24A, 1955). See also VD Fact Sheet (U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare), No. 12, December, 1955, p. 10. The rate
of syphilis was cut from 447 per 100,000 in 1943 to 76 per 100,000 in
1955! A good reference list of literature on venereal disease can be found
in, Milestones in VD Control (U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 1959).
16. J. K. Shafer, ScD., L. J. Usilton, Sc.D., E. V. Price, Long-Term
Studies of Results of Penicillin Therapy in Early Syphilis, Bulletin of
World Health Organization, X (1954), 574.
17. VD Fact Sheet, p. 2.
18. Available evidence indicates that about 20 per cent of the approximately 400,000 annual VD cases are teenagers. The rate for this group in recent years has gone up. This age group is least likely to know proper precautions. In our culture, permissive teenagers are most likely to be promiscuous and adherents of the double standard or permissiveness without affection. See E. G. Clark,»M.D., "A Warning to America," This Week, September 2, 1956. The evidence from Kinsey seems to be in agreement with my reasoning. However, he reports only 2-3 per cent of his female sample contracted VD. See Kinsey, Human Female, p. 332.
19. Kinsey found much higher rates of venereal disease and preg-
nancy for lower income groups. These groups seem to be much more
double-standard and permissiveness-without-affection than college groups
are. Human Male, pp. 561-62. This lends some further support to our
reasoning.
20. Kinsey, Hum/an Female, pp. 315-22. Between 20-44 per cent of the
women in Kinsey's sample said that social condemnation was one of the
factors restricting their sexual activity. Only 14-23 per cent of the men had
similar fears.
21. Ibid., p. 326. Kinsey's data showed that only six out of every 100,000 copulations were discovered while in process.
22. An interesting discussion of the liberalization of American ministers' attitudes on sex can be found in Look Magazine, November 25 1958, "What Ministers Are Learning about Sex," by Dr. Gelolo McHugh and J. Robert Moskin, pp. 79-86. One should not underestimate the potency of religious beliefs. Kinsey found such beliefs to be very important in altering rates of premarital coitus. See Human Female, pp. 304-7. To illustrate, by age 30, about 60 per cent of the "inactive" Protestant women had premarital coitus, whereas by age 30, only about 30 per cent of the "devout" Protestant women had premarital coitus. Of course, for a full causal explanation, one would have to check further to see if religion was the cause of these changes or just correlated to these rates. Also, for men, religion, though important, was nowhere near as highly related as was educational and occupational class. A low-educated active Protestant male would still have more coitus than an inactive, highly educated Protestant male. For additional evidence of the effect of religious beliefs see: Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Behavior, p. 94; Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., p. 339.
23. For support on this point see the following study of ministerial students: Austin L. Porterfield and H. E. Salley, "Current Folkways of Sexual Behavior," American Journal of Sociology, LII (November 1946), 209-16
24. For an informative elaboration of religious views towards sexual behavior, with special reference to the Kinsey reports, see Seward Hiltner, Sex, Ethics and the Kinsey Reports (New York: Association Press, 1953).
25. Kinsey notes such a difference on p. 332 of Human Female, and Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., p. 375, found the same sort of difference. Exact figures are quoted later in this chapter.
26. This entire question of reference groups is now of central concern in sociology. Of particular pertinence here would be the effects of both membership and non-membership reference groups on one's feelings. See Merton. op. cit.. chap. ix.
27. Kinsey, Human Female, pp. 316-21; Kinsey, Human Male, p. 562. See Table 92, p. 345, Human Female. Eighty-one per cent of those having coitus only with fiance had no regret. Only 9 per cent of this group expressed "definite regret," whereas 28 per cent of the girls who had coitus "with other men but not with their fiances," expressed definite regret.
28. Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., p. 375. These percentages are based on responses from 74 men and 69 women. Of course, some deliberate deception may be present. But it is believed that deception will account for but a part of these high percentages.
29. For elaboration of this, see Lester A. Kirkendall, "Premarital Sex Relations," Pastoral Psychology, VII (April, 1956), 46-53. Mr. Kirkendall is now studying two hundred college males and their sexual activities. Here too, however, sexual standards are not being focused on.
30. It may be noted here that Kinsey's findings on religion also support the self-selection notion. As noted above, he found many more "devout" people refrained and many more "inactives" indulged. See Human Female, pp. 304-7.
31. Human Female, p. 427. Rates for males are also correlated with premarital experience, in that lower-educated males have more premarital and extramarital experience than higher-educated males. See Human Male, pp. 586-90. However, this relation holds only in early marriage. In later marriage, the college males have the highest rates of adultery. Kinsey believes that there is no causal relation here between pre- and extramarital coitus. Terman, op. cit., p. 340, also found a correlation for husbands and for wives, although the relation between pre- and extramarital coitus was lower for the wives.
32. Human Female. p. 437.
33. Ibid., pp. 431-36. Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., pp. 400-2. The conditions under which their respondents would accept adultery are listed here.
34. Paddy Chayefsky's 1957 movie, "The Bachelor Party," shows clearly how the double standard can lead to adultery. Some empirical evidence for this notion can be obtained from the excellent study: William F. Whyte, Street Corner Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955).
35. Human Female, pp. 434-36. Males rated their wives' adultery as important in divorce twice as often as the women so rated the man's adultery. An almost identical finding was made by Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., p. 399.
36. Many conflicting customs, such as the double standard and abstinence, are allowed to co-exist by virtue of the effects of other customs, i.e., other customs, such as adultery, act as compensatory customs and enable us to live with our contradictions. See paper by the author entitled: "Functional Narcotics: A Compensatory Mechanism for the Social System."
37. Burgess and Wallin. op. cit.. p. 386.
38. For a novel which deals with a modern day "wife-swapping club" and its consequences, see Philip Wylie, As They Reveled (New York: Avon Publications, 1935). One of the major insights of this book is the ease with which individuals can accept adultery for themselves but not for their mates. Kinsey backs up Wylie on this point, for although only 14 per cent of the women and 18 per cent of the men thought their own adultery led to divorce, 27 per cent of the women and 51 per cent of the men felt the other person's adultery was a major factor in divorce. Wylie points out that such reactions may well be based on the added "unexpectancy" which adultery entails. Adultery involves a loss of personal element in a marriage and it accordingly involves less mutual dependency.
39. Some evidence on this comes from Sweden, where the liberal attitudes towards premarital coitus are coupled with very stern attitudes toward adultery. See Kalvesten, op. cit., pp. 67-68.
40. For such a critical view, but one which is not documented, see Pitirim Sorokin, The American Sex Revolution (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1956).
41. See Statistical Bulletin of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, XXXVII (May, 1956), 4-5-probably the best brief account of recent marriage statistics. Since the recession in 1957, the marriage rate has slightly declined. See Statistical Bulletin of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, XXXIX (May, 1958), 1-4. The most complete source of statistics on marriage and divorce can be found in one volume: Paul H. Iacobson, American Marriage and Divorce (New York: Kinehart and Company, 1959).
42. The age at marriage may have remained the same rather than
fallen as most statisticians report. It all depends on the sources and statistical methods. For a defense of this position, see Thomas P. Monahan "One Hundred Years of Marriage," American Journal of Sociology, LVI (May, 1951), 534-45. Other statistics are unquestioned.
43. Terman, op. cit., p. 181. Terman did some investigation of the correlation between age at marriage and marital happiness. His results indicated a slight correlation showing more happiness for later ages at marriage. The correlation, however, was too small to be significant. The high divorce rates of teen-age marriages is relevant here. Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., p. 521, summarize the findings on relating age of marriage to marital success. It seems that marriages of above average aged couples tend to be more successful.
44. For a position which emphasizes the power of sex, see Sylvanus M. Duvall, Men, Women and Morals (New York: Association Press, 1952). On p. 295, Duvall states his position that if premarital coitus is allowed at all, it will occur promiscuously. However, psychologists seem to disagree and hold that emotional enslavement to sex, alcohol, etc. is not a sign of what will happen to all, but rather a sign of the great emotional needs of some people.
45. The increase in the divorce rate in the last 60 years cannot be blamed on the increase in premarital coitus. Divorce is most high among teen-agers and poor people-several times as high as the rates for higher classes and older people. Jacobson, op. cit. The most accepted reason for divorce is that we now marry for love and not out of duty, so when love fails, we divorce. Related to this, is some slight evidence that those people who have premarital coitus have slightly lower marital success scores. However, the evidence is far from conclusive. See: Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., chap. xv; Terman, op. cit., chaps. iv and xiv; Clifford Kirkpatrick, The Family (New York: The Ronald Press, 1955), chap. xv; Albert Ellis, "The Value of Marriage Prediction Tests," American Sociological Review, XIII .December, 1948), 710-18. For additional evidence see Harvey J. Locke, Predicting Adjustment in Marriage (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1951), chap. vii.
46. Some people believe that premarital experience may be so enticing that marital sex will be dull by comparison. Were marital sex purely physical this might be the case, but it has a very important psychic element also.
|
