|
Chapter Nine
Our Formal Single Standard of Abstinence
CHASTITY FOR WOMEN IS AN ANCIENT CUSTOM, practiced for many millenniums before Christianity. Christianity was unique only in that it tried to introduce into a predominantly double-standard Western world the notion of abstinence for both sexes-a single standard of abstinence. Christianity did not fully succeed in this attempt, but through its efforts, we have inherited a certain amount of respect for our formal sexual standard of abstinence.
People who accept abstinence believe that sexual intercourse is too important an act, too valuable and intimate to be performed with anyone besides one's marriage partner. They thus want to save sexual intercourse for marriage, which, they feel, is the most secure setting for sexual relations. About half of the women in the Kinsey, Burgess and Wallin, and Terman studies were virginal at marriage. Since our culture holds this standard up as an ideal, these people are reinforced in their beliefs by our formal norms.1
One fact which is certain is that a great many of the adherents of abstinence accept forms of sexual intimacy which would never have been permissible two or three generations ago. The female virgins in Kinsey's sample, born 1910 or later and who had at least been kissed, behaved as follows: Three of every four had experienced breast caresses, and between a quarter and a third of them engaged in masturbating their dates or in being masturbated, while about one in six engaged in the genital apposition form of petting. I am using the term "petting" to mean sexually exciting behavior usually involving the mamrnary and genital areas.2
One cannot be certain if these virgins all accepted their behavior as right and proper. There is evidence that many girls suffer from doubt over the correctness of their petting behavior; possibly because it clashes with the more conservative parental codes.3
What are the various subtypes of the standard of abstinence which regulate this behavior? Our present-day abstinence standard can be divided into (a) petting without affection, (b) petting with affection, (c) kissing without affection, and (d) kissing with affection.4
PETTING WITHOUT AFFECTION
The data cited above on petting make it clear that there are some people, both male and female, who accept abstinence but feel that as long as coitus is avoided, they can pet heavily with most people who physically attract them. This is the definition of the subtype, petting without affection. There are some distinctions beyond physical attractions made so as to preserve their reputations among more conservative people. For example, if such a girl feels that the boys in her own neighborhood are not as "liberal" as she, then she may try to preserve her reputation by not petting heavily with these boys and petting heavily with other out-of-town dates. This result is very similar to the "mobility effect" of the double standard. The less generally accepted the activity, the more likely a girl will have to go outside her neighborhood to find partners if she wants to keep her hometown reputation.
The men and women I interviewed who accept petting without affection tend to think of virginity in a strictly physical sense. They defend their beliefs by contending that as long as a person remains physically virginal, he or she is morally pure and will probably, therefore, make a more faithful marriage partner. This view is somewhat questionable as we shall see later on in this chapter.
A further look into this standard will reveal its similarity to our permissiveness without affection standard. Both of these beliefs involve a casual attitude towards sexual relations -a lack of association between sexual behavior,and affection. Both are standards which encourage body-centered behavior. The female in the petting standard is still technically virginal, but she is also a sexually experienced female. Such a paradoxical woman is best defined as a "promiscuous virgin."
Our religions are opposed to petting without affection; in fact, they are opposed to any petting standard. Many of our more orthodox religions even forbid kissing if such behavior arouses one sexually. The casual and indiscriminate view towards sexual relations which goes along with petting without affection arouses perhaps the strongest religious opposition outside of opposition to actual coitus. Nevertheless, since this standard still technically requires virginity, it gains prestige and more acceptance than the non-virginal permissiveness without affection. Both these body-centered standards, however, probably have only moderate followings among the middle and upper classes. Although such people pet frequently, they seem to accept such behavior much more easily when a stable affectionate relationship is involved.
Petting without affection is a relatively new standard. It, of course, is not new behavior, but as an accepted subtype of abstinence, it is quite recent. Widespread dating without chaperonage only goes back to about the turn of the century, and such unchaperoned dating is a prerequisite for this type of sexual freedom. This standard appealed to those men and women who desired to obtain more sexual pleasures than the old abstinence standards would allow, but who did not want to fully lose their virginity. The added freedom insured by the end of chaperonage and the new economic independence and anonymity which the city afforded greatly encouraged more sexual freedom; petting without affection was one of the many new sexual standards to arise from these conditions.5 This standard is further evidence of the sexually permissive direction we in America have headed toward during the last few generations. Petting without affection would have been unthinkable in the nineteenth century. It is still somewhat extreme in America today-extreme, that is, for an abstinence subtype. It is not, however, the sexual intimacy which seems extreme to many Americans, but the indiscriminate fashion in which it is carried on. It violates our older Puritan feelings about body-centered behavior, and it does not have our newer justification of love.
PETTING WITH AFFECTION
My own informal questioning over the last several years with college students and others leads me to strongly believe that the most widely accepted subtype of abstinence is petting with affection. Ehrmann's study has perhaps the best evidence in support of the popularity of this standard, at least among girls. He states that "going steady added respectability to petting...."6 Petting with affection accepts petting only when strong affection or love is present. This standard is, in many ways, similar to permissiveness with affection. Both standards involve a strong association of sexual behavior and affection, of monogamous affairs, of mutual satisfaction and loyalty. Just as permissiveness with affection tends to build up psychic satisfaction, emotional maturity and other positivevalue consequences, so one would expect this subtype of abstinence to do somewhat the same. Of course, all of these effects are usually on a smaller scale, since the amount of intimacy involved in a petting standard is less than that involved in coitus. The petting which the adherents of this subtype allow also varies a good deal, making some of these adherents more intimate than others.
Petting with affection has also greatly expanded in recent decades due to the previously discussed vast socio-economic changes which have occurred in our country. Those individuals not willing to go as far as full intercourse nor to be as indiscriminate as was required by petting without affection found a happy medium in the petting-with-affection standard. This standard was more in line with the older notions of virginity, as it held the idea of discrimination and faithfulness to one's partner. However, it did toss away that aspect of traditional virginity standards which held that women should enter marriage virtually "untouched." Furthermore, even though it is a person-centered standard, it is unacceptable to our present-day religions, since petting involves erotic arousal outside of marriage. Despite such disapproval, it seems to be a very popular standard among young people today.7 The positive value our culture places on affection and discrimination in regard to sexual relations makes this standard appealing to many girls who do not yet feel ready to go further than petting.
KISSING WITHOUT AFFECTION
This subtype accepts only kissing but permits this whenever one desires. In my interviews, these adherents were young people in their early and middle teens who are too conservative to go beyond kissing but too much enamoured with kissing to restrict it. Some of these adherents desire some sexual activity in order to keep their dates interested but fear to go beyond kissing.
This standard meets similar opposition in our culture and has similar characteristics to its "big sister," petting without affection. The key difference is that the opposition is much less than in the case of petting, because most Americans view indiscriminate kissing as of less consequence than indiscriminate petting. However, kissing without affection, because of its lack of discrimination, still seems to clash with the older notions of virginity.
KISSING WITH AFFECTION
This is the fourth and last subtype of abstinence. It is the most restrictive of all the abstinence standards. Those girls brought up by very conservative parents would be most likely to become adherents of this subtype. Probably more people in the younger age groups accept this standard. The older age groups would tend to be less restrictive. There seems to be a progression through which many girls proceed -kissing only while in high school, petting after high school and often accepting full coitus in their twenties. My own research supports this view, and Kinsey found that the number of non-virgins doubled between the ages of twenty and twentyfive.8 It would be most worthwhile to see if this hypothesized age-sex progression is generally valid and to spell out the details of its functioning.
The restraints are too great and the actual intimacies too small for this standard to yield much psychic satisfaction as a direct result of the sexual behavior accompanying it. How ever, many adherents do romanticize and glory over their kissing experiences. One unique characteristic of this standard is that it comes closer than any of the other standards to being acceptable by our organized religious groups. Accordingly, it is closer to the orthodox, traditional meaning of virginity. It stresses the almost complete lack of sexual experience before marriage and thus is in line with the "untouched" and discrimination notions of virginity.
If Kinsey's data is at all indicative, it would seem that about a quarter of those who accept abstinence limit themselves to kissing.9 Other girls perhaps would like to, but fail to achieve this goal in practice. In any case, it would seem fair and conservative to say that the American female virgin belongs about half to the kissing standards and half to the petting standards. The petting standards probably are increasing in adherents and seem to be more popular with the older females.
VIRGINITY AND FAITHFULNESS
One of the reasons often put forth by abstinence believers in support of their views is the relation which they feel pertains between their standard and faithfulness in marriage.10
Just what does premarital chastity entail? Technically, it means that a person has not engaged in behavior involving the penetration of the vagina by the penis. In the case of the female, it also means that the woman is expected to possess a hymen, i.e., the fold which partially blocks the opening to the vagina. These physical conditions of virginity can and are met by persons who have engaged in genital apposition, mutual masturbation, and mutual oral-genital stimulation, to mention but a few of the heavy petting practices fairly common among our virginal groups. Moreover, one could have indulged in these practices with scores of partners and still be considered virginal. Now, does such a definition of virginity delineate those who are likely to be faithful?
In the last century, there were men like the Italian Lombroso who believed that one could tell criminals by their physical characteristics.11 Lombroso felt that left-handed men were swindlers, men with scanty beards were highly inclined towards crime, as were men with slanting foreheads or large canine teeth. Today such a "physical" view of criminality is laughed off by the general public as well as by almost all professional criminologists.12 It is known only too well that character cannot be judged by physical features. But what is being done when a girl who possesses a hymen is classified as a "good" girl and probably a faithful wife? Is not character being judged by physical characteristics?
The "promiscuous virgins" of petting without affection do not seem especially likely to be faithful in marriage. Such females have not built up a standard of discrimination; they have not controlled their sexual activity according to the affection they felt, nor have they discriminated on any other basis besides physical attraction. It is true that such a female has avoided sexual intercourse, but in a technical sense only. Orgasm experienced by bare genital contact is quite close to orgasm experienced by actual coitus. How much difference in her character would it have made if such a female had actually copulated? This sort of promiscuous virginity brings to mind the story of the man who, while ill for an entire month, was being fed by intravenous injections instead of by mouth. The man later claimed he had not really eaten for that month because no food entered his mouth. In a technical sense, he was right. But in a more meaningful sense, this man and a promiscuous virgin are both more accurately classified as "experienced."
There is a certain contradiction in being sexually promiscuous and being virginal in the traditional sense. The fault lies with the "physical" definition of virginity which is used. Some females are born without a hymen and thus would never be virginal in the physical sense, and other females may lose their hymens through masturbation. Thus one cannot rely upon the hymen as a sign of virginity. The hymen at times has great elasticity and there are cases of prostitutes who still possess their hymens.13 Thus, if a physical definition of virginity is desired, it must be redefined as precluding the entrance of the penis into the vagina. But even this sort of definition involves difficulties. How far into the vagina must the penis enter before it is considered intercourse? Many females pet in a fashion allowing partial entry of the penis. These females still consider themselves as virgins. Are they? Where shall the line be drawn? The narrowness of the physical criteria of virginity becomes more and more obvious.
Such a physical definition might not be so faulty if our interest were only in a physical state, but most people are interested in what they believe such a physical state symbolizes the presence of a "pure" female or male; one who will be faithful in marriage. In order to see if this connection necessarily exists, compare a promiscuous virgin female with a non-virginal female who accepts permissiveness with affection. Who is more likely to be faithful in marriage -everything else being equal - a woman who has experienced a few affairs involving coitus with men she loved, or a woman who has experienced scores of relationships involving heavy petting with men for whom she did not care. It seems probable that the non-virginal woman will have built up habits of associating sex with affection, of monogamous affairs, of emotional maturity, which all may tend toward faithfulness in marriage. The petting without affection adherent does not seem so likely to have developed such attitudes and habits. I think we can all agree that, in this case, the virgin, from a theoretical point of view, certainly seems to be more likely to be unfaithful than the non-virgin.
It seems more reasonable to determine faithfulness by an examination of a person's attitudes and beliefs rather than by an examination of physical characteristics. As shown previously, a female who is non-virginal physically may be virginal mentally, i.e., her attitudes may be discriminatory and likely to lead to faithfulness in marriage. The adherents of petting without affection have lost sight of the attitudes which the physical state was supposed to evidence. They have concentrated so much on one means that they, like the miser who hoards money, have forgotten why they have been saving themselves.
The above reasoning would seem to most clearly apply to the petting-without-affection adherents, but it also seems to have some validity for the other abstinence subtypes. In all cases, it would seem that a purely physical criteria for faithfulness is insufficient. Discrimination and emotional maturity are the crucial determinants and one must see which stand ards are likely to develop these characteristics. In conclusion, it may be well to add that even these premarital coital attitudes are not sufficient bases for determining future behavior. As was pointed out in chapter seven, there are many other motivations to adultery.14 Nevertheless, the fact remains that Kinsey did find more virginal women faithful to their husbands. As I noted in chapter seven, this may be due to the fact that more liberal people engage in coitus before a divorce is final or when love has left a marriage. Also some standards, such as the double standard, may encourage casual adultery. In short, I would still contend.that in abstinence, as in the permissive standards, one has to examine the particular standard to see if and how it is related to faithfulness in marriage.
SEXUAL DESIRES AND INHIBITIONS
a) Psychological Difficulties. Nineteenth-century Victorianism put forth the doctrine that to inhibit oneself was a good in itself. The Victorians held that one must learn to control all impulses and can only become a mature adult if this task is fully accomplished. Then a Viennese doctor caught the breath of the world, and the nineteenth-century emphasis on restriction was stopped with a tremendous start and reversed with equal force. Sigmund Freud and his popularizers began to tell their doctrines to the world-declaring that to inhibit oneself was to invite neurosis and psychosis. They held that man's animal instincts, his "id," were constantly at war with society.15 Society repressed man, and if man was to avoid serious mental illness, he had to minimize these repressions and act freely in accord with his impulses. This was held to be particularly true in regard to sexual impulses. These ideas became most popular around the 1920's and have lasted until the present day, even though they do not quite accurately reflect Freud's own position or that of the present-day neo-Freudians.16
Psychologists today seem in general agreement that one must learn to regulate his emotions, but that one cannot be a complete dictator even to himself-to attempt to do so is to invite psychological troubles.17 Freud saw the oppression and conflict in the Victorian approach, but like so many reform movements, at the beginning, his went all the way to the opposite extreme in a wide pendulum sweep. Freud failed to fully understand that man can accept society's customs, and, if he does, they need not be oppressive to him; rather they can become part of him. Freud did not fully appreciate that the part of man that may find "society" oppressive may be a part which was developed by that same society. It may be that there are parts of every society in conflict with each other; people, brought up in these societies, are likely to reflect this conflict within themselves.18 This being the case, giving vent to impulses, ids, instincts,19 and so forth would merely be giving vent to one type of learned behavior, and such action, rather than leading to freedom, might lead to conflict with other learned forms of behavior. Thus, giving into one's impulses often will create as many problems as it solves. It seems that neither Victorianism nor Freudianism had the full answer to the consequences of inhibition.
The amount of inhibition (restraint of sexual desire)20 should vary directly with the difference between the amount of desire the individual has and the amount of restriction involved in the standard. One might think that our two "kissing" standards would be held by those people who have developed the strongest inhibitions. Nevertheless, this must be qualified by adding that these people may not have strong desires. A girl sheltered and kept from experiences and friends which might arouse and develop her sexual desire may abide by a kissing standard and not inhibit herself greatly, since she does not desire very much else.21 Since many parts of our culture stress sexual desire, it would be difficult to grow up without at least partially coming into contact with these forces via literature, movies, or friends. Thus, most people should feel some inhibition, although not necessarily a severe degree.
What are the results then for the females who do feel sexual desires but who contain themselves? There is a price to pay for all inhibitions. A woman will feel a certain amount of pain if she tries to stop herself from doing what she wishes. This pain, however, can be counterbalanced by the feeling that one is doing right. It is only when the distance between one's sexual desires and one's sexual standards becomes quite great that the danger of serious emotional conflicts arises. In such a case, a person is torn between his or her strong desire for sexual relations and the powerful feelings concerning the wrongness of the act. Such a situation, if it continues for a length of time, can lead to serious psychological disturbances. Be it clear-the ordinary feeling of pain due to self-denial of a minor sort is not harmful psychologically; it may be helpful in that it aids in integrating behavior with values. Avoiding every bit of pain in life is avoiding life itself; this leads to naught but a spoiled and neurotic and unfulfilled individual. The serious situation is the one involving a wide gap between desire and standard.22 The solution to conflict of this kind is easy to state but difficult to achieve. One must either change his desires or change his standards-or change both so as to bring them closer together, thereby lessening the intensity of the conflict.
The solution is not in indulgence any more than it is in chastity. The answer is in lessening the gap between desire and standard, and this can be accomplished either by indulgence or chastity depending on what the individual can accept and achieve. Some people feel so strongly about remaining chaste that the only workable solution is to try to lessen their sexual desires by avoiding certain kinds of situations. Others find it impossible to lessen their desires but are able to change their standards to allow themselves more sexual freedom. Others are unable to change either desires or standards and end up with strong emotional disturbances.
b) Marital Difficulties. But what about those people who are able to control their desires without such severe difficulty? What about those whose desires are not too strong due to their restrictive upbringing? Will they become overly inhibited wives and husbands? Again there is no yes or no answer to such a question. If these people are engaging in either of the two "petting standards," it seems there is less likelihood of being unable to let "go" in marital coitus.23 Such people will probably have developed their sexual emotions to a much greater degree than those adhering to the "kissing standards."
According to three of the major studies (Terman, Kinsey, and Burgess and Wallin), roughly ten out of every one hundred wives never in all their years of marriage achieved orgasm, and an additional twenty out of every one hundred wives achieved orgasm rarely and only after the first year or so of marriage.24 The evidence of the association between premarital and marital orgasm has already been given.25 From this evidence, it would seem that those abstinence women who lack premarital orgasm would be more likely to have orgasm difficulty in marriage. The kissing standards would more likely be involved here. Some of these people would be frigid women who did not desire orgasm.26 Nevertheless, 60 per cent of this group of unexperienced virgins did achieve orgasm in the first year of marriage.27 Thus, the prognosis for inexperienced virgins is not as poor as one might suppose.
The other group of women who have marital orgasm difficulty is composed of individuals who have engaged in coitus but failed to ever reach orgasm. Many of the guilt-ridden people in this group would be adherents of abstinence who had violated their beliefs. Thus the believers in abstinence, in particular those who violate this belief and experience guilt feelings and those who follow their belief but lack premarital orgasm experience, probably supply the bulk of those females who are unable to achieve orgasm in marriage. This situation is likely aggravated by the fact that these females are often mated with double-standard men who, as has been discussed in the last chapter, often make losing inhibitions even more difficult.
Many of the believers in abstinence are caught in a dilemma in our culture. They must walk a tightrope between guilt and serious inhibitions. If they go too far, they are bothered by guilt; if they do not go far enough, they are bothered by the risk of inhibitions which may be difficult to break. Were our culture less sensate, were it to accent the desirability of sexual behavior less than it does, it might be easier to be abstinent. But our culture, as it is now, merely aggravates the over-all situation by its allegiance to abstinence, while in our movies, songs, television, and books, sexuality is provoked in a multitude of forms. Americans find it difficult to digest both offerings. Let me hasten to add that, despite this situation, there are many girls who seem able to walk this tightrope and adjust quite well to marital coitus.
SECURITY, RESPECT, AND SAVING
The abstinence subtypes are, in one major respect, much more protective than the permissive standards. The general opinion in America favors abstinence; a female who abstains from intercourse is much less likely to run into social condemnation. It is this added security or acceptance element which encourages many girls to forego the desirable consequences of premarital sexual intercourse.
The over-all view as to security feelings is not easy to portray. As many abstinence females know, there are numerous aspects of their standard which make them feel insecure and unsure of themselves. Nevertheless, abstinence does afford the very comforting feeling of abiding by the formally accepted standard.28
Abstinence adherents, as a rule, feel that a boy will not make sexual advances unless he lacks respect for the girl. They believe the boy agrees with them that one should "save something for marriage." Thus, they believe they are in a better position-one which affords more respect from others than the position of the female who goes further in her sexual intimacies. This is a very common line of reasoning and deserves some comment here.
Such reasoning is somewhat vague and general. It is true that double-standard males will make their most aggressive sexual advances with females they classify as "bad." But it is equally true that these males and single-standard males (which one must remember exist also) will make sexual advances of some sort with girls they like. As shown earlier, some person-centered coital relations are carried on by adherents of the transitional subtype of the double standard. Many other double-standard males feel that, although they would lose respect for a girl if she engaged in coitus, they would not lose respect for a girl who engaged in petting with men she liked a great deal.
Less than one-half of the men in the Kinsey study stated they would require virginity in their wives while less than a quarter of the females had such virginal requirements for their future mates.29 Of course, many other men may prefer virginity even though they do not require it. Nevertheless, this is strong evidence that virginity is not as important to many groups of men as it once was.30
Thus it seems that many boys-double standard as well as single standard-accept petting when affection is involved, and many others accept coitus when love or engagement is involved.31 These boys would not lose their respect for a girl who complied with such standards. They might very well pass up a girl whose standards were much stricter than their own. In that sense, such men might "lose respect" for abstinence females because they were too strict or old-fashioned.
It is important to note that a great many abstinence women would lose respect for themselves if they engaged in petting or coitus before marriage, and they abstain for these reasons. Such women may feel they want sexual activity to be something sacred, and they, therefore, must avoid it until they marry and can associate it with a sacred union in marriage. This certainly is a widely accepted position.
The desire to save something for marriage is indeed one which most Americans look upon favorably. Marriage is of great importance, and most all people want to enter it under the best possible circumstances. Nevertheless, there is a dilemma present here. As in other things, if we wait too long, often our ability to perform the action decreases, and the notion of the action tends to lose contact with reality.32 Thus it seems that the female who adheres strictly to the abstinence code may involve herself in disillusionment or sexual inhibitions, while the more liberal abstinence adherent may feel that the little she is saving is not meaningful enough.
Permissive individuals feel that in a larger sense, we all save something for marriage. We save a feeling of love for our mate which we have never exactly felt before and never will exactly feel again. Every love affair is new and unique in this sense and always involves something which was never present before. To the abstinence believer, however, such saving is not sufficient.
Part of the reason for the dilemma of abstinence "saving" lies in our conflicting social expectations. We demand that a female restrain herself and avoid developing sexual desires before marriage, and yet we expect that in marriage a magic transformation will occur to make this same restrained female passionate and well versed in the art of sexual gratification. The two roles of "pure virgin" before marriage and "good sexual partner" in marriage are difficult to combine.33
FINAL EXPLANATIONS OF
CHARACTERISTICS AND CONSEQUENCES
Some mention should be made that this standard, like our three other major standards, varies by education and occupational classes. Exact statements are not possible, but Kinsey's evidence indicates that among college-educated males, about one-third are virgins before marriage, while among gradeschool-educated males, only about 10 per cent are virgins before marriage. Thus abstinence is likely much stronger among college males. However, 35-52 per cent of the virginal males stated that lack of opportunity kept them from losing their virginity; these men are likely "circumstantial" virgins rather than believers in abstinence.
Among females in Kinsey's sample the picture is somewhat different. Between the ages of 16 and 20, 38 per cent of the grade-school-educated girls and about only 18 per cent of the college-educated girls have intercourse. Since the gradeschool-educated girls marry several years younger, eventually the college girls achieve the highest premarital intercourse rates (60 per cent). It is difficult to tell if the girls with a grade school education accepted abstinence, or whether they just married before they had the opportunity for coitus. Twenty-two per cent of the female virgins stated that they lacked the opportunity to have coitus and were just "circumstantial" virgins.
So, in abstinence, too, one finds some variance by social classes, such as educational class. As stated, it is difficult to do more than make some general distinction, for most of the evidence focuses on behavior rather than standards.34
From this over-all discussion of abstinence, it should be clear that, although the social acceptability of abstinence may add to one's feelings of security, there are other parts of this standard which add insecurity and conflict. How restrictive should one be? How much should one save for marriage? Will one be able to enjoy marital coitus? Should one go "all the way" when in love? These are the questions which frequently arise and make the security of abstinence far from an unmitigated blessing.
As in most social beliefs, the major reason for adherence to abstinence is the fact that one was brought up to believe in it, and is thus emotionally attached. Other "reasons" given for such a belief are often shared rationalizations. Kinsey, Burgess and Wallin, and Ehrmann, all found that most of their women said that "moral objection" was a chief reason for restricting on's behavior. Such moral objection is verbalized as "a feeling that abstinenece is right or best." This feeling is what I mean here by emotional attachment due to one's upbringing.35
Most of the younger abstinence females are probably quite content with their standard. A good number of the older abstinence women, however, tire of always having to draw a line.36 The possible bad consequences of coitus seem to have lost some of their fearfulness, and the good consequences seem to have become more attractive. Many of these people are torn between these two sets of consequences- wanting one set and yet still fearing and respecting the other set. Nevertheless, the traditional teaching of abstinence still has a grip on a great number of our young people. They very often feel as the following individual:
We have discussed sexual relations and we both decided we'd rather not. It's not because we don't want to, but because we don't think it is worth it. And it's not because of any risk involved. I thought I would cheapen myself in my eyes and hers. I love her too much to have that relationship a furtive one.37
The above quote illustrates the basic feeling of wrongness that training has instilled-the act would "cheapen" oneself because it is viewed as immoral.
1. What is said about the single standard of abstinence here applies logically also to the orthodox double-standard female who believes only in female virginity. Many such females prefer abstinence but tolerate the double standard. There is very little information on male virgins. Many such males seem to be circumstantial virgins; they desire coitus but have not had the proper opportunity yet. Among female virgins, Kinsey found about 22 per cent, and among males, 35-52 per cent, who said lack of opportunity kept them virginal. Kinsey, Human Female, p. 332.
2. Kinsey combines both petting and kissing behavior under the rubric of petting. I have separated these two types. Human Female, pp. 280-81. Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Behavior, p. 46, also shows over half the females with petting experience.
3. Kinsey,.Human Female, p. 261.
4. See comments below Chart II, in chap. x for an elaboration of these subtypes.
5. As an example of the vast increases here, see Kinsey, Human Female, p. 275. Only 15 per cent of those women born before 1900 petted to orgasm by age 25, while between 30 per cent and 43 per cent of the newer generations petted to orgasm by age 25. Some of this increase would be due to the growth of petting without affection.
6. Ehrmann. Premarital Dating Behavior, p. 141.
7. Human Female, pp. 240-41. Males seem to differ in the percentage who pet to orgasm. Of the men who attended college, 59 per cent petted to orgasm before marriage, 30 per cent of the men whose education stopped in high school petted to orgasm before marriage, and of those whose education stopped in the eighth grade, only 16 per cent experienced premarital orgasm from petting. These lower education groups make up for this difference in that they have the highest percentage in coitus. Girls presented a different picture in the Kinsey study. There did not seem to be any difference in educational level in petting to orgasm except that the lower-educational group began petting earlier. In response to a questionnaire I distributed to college girls, about two-thirds of 50 abstinent females said they accepted and preferred petting with affection.
8. Ibid., p. 339. See Table 2 of this book, p. 224.
9. Ibid., pp. 254-55. Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Behavior, chap. ii. Ehrmann found about one-third of all his females limited themselves to kissing.
10. There is some empirical evidence for this belief. Kinsey found that only one-third of the adulterous females entered marriage virginally. See Human Female, pp. 427-28, and my discussion in chap. vii.
11. Cesare Lombroso, Crime: Its Causes and Remedies, trans. H. P. Horton (New York: Little Brown and Company, 1911).
12. I say "almost all" for Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck have recently written a book entitled Physique and Delinquency (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), in which there is an attempt made to show correlation of body build with criminal activity. However, the Gluecks take a more sophisticated approach.
13. Dickinson, Atlas of Human Sex Anatomy, p. 68. An excellent illustrated discussion of the female virgin, the hymen, and other relevant topics can be found in this volume. See in particular pp. 60, 61, 62, 68, 103 104, and 105. Also figures 55, 71, 73, 89, 95, and 100. For general reference, note the excellent diagrams in figures 15. 45. and 142
14. Human Female, pp. 427-28. The virginal woman may in part commit adultery because she is more subject to having romantic illusions of marriage and may be less well-adjusted sexually.
15. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Ifs Discontents (London: Hogarth Press, 1930). This book affords one insight into Freud's views concerning the inherent conflict between society and the individual.
16. For a brief summary of Freudianism, see Charles Brenner, An Elementary Textbook of Psychonnalysis (New York: International University Press, Inc., 1955).
17. For a modern-day development of this point of view, see Flanders Dunbar, M.D., Mind and Body: Psychosomatic Medicine (New York: Random House, 1947 ).
18. For elaboration of this, see Merton, op. cit., chap. iv, "Social Structure and Anomie," pp. 131-60.
19. The term "instinct" was most effectively delineated and defined by the late Luther Lee Bernard, Instinct (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1924). Bernard found over 14,000 different human traits which had been called instinctive, and he tried, therefore, to clarify the term so that it would be more than just an unknown name for the unknown. See also Shaffer, op. cit., chap. ii.
20. Inhibition is not lack of desire, but restraint of desire. It differs from sublimation which is transference or removal of desire via other activity, and differs also from frigidity which is lack of desire. For a good discussion of the difficulties of sublimation see: Human Male, pp. 205-13. For the classical discussion of these concepts, see Havelock Ellis, Psychology of Sex (New York: Mentor Books, 1954). Men like Havelock Ellis and Kraft-Ebing and others are pioneers in sex, but they are not too relevant in this book due to the psychological approach they used. For other purposes their work would be of first importance.
21. In Kinsey's sample, sexual unresponsiveness was checked as a definite reason for restraint by 32-45 per cent. Human Female, p. 344. This is probably most valid for younger females. Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Behavior, p. 229. Ehrmann found that about half the girls listed "no desire" as a restraint when a non-lover was involved but only 11 per cent said this when a lover was involved.
22. For two world-famous "case studies" of such deep conflict, see St. Augustine, The Confessions of Saint Augustine, trans. F. J. Sheed, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1942), and Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Confessions of J. J. Rousseau (New York: Pocket Books, 1957).
23. Kinsey, Human Female, pp. 266-67.
24. Kinsey, Human Female, chap. ix, especially pp. 383, 393. Kinsey found that 10 per cent of the wives never reached orgasm and 15 per cent took over a year to reach their first orgasm, while about 50 per cent reached their first orgasm in the first month of marriage. The vast majority of this 50 per cent had experienced orgasm of some kind previous to marriage. Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., p. 670. These men found that 5.1 per cent of the women never experienced orgasm in marriage and that an additional 21.5 per cent only experience orgasm sometimes. These women had been married on the average of four years. Terman, op. cit., p. 300. He found that 8.3 per cent of the wives never experienced orgasm and an additional 25.1 per cent experienced it only sometimes. More wives reach orgasm in the more recent generations. See: Human Female, pp. 356-65.
25. See my Chart 1, p. 185. I cannot stress enough that all that is known here is a correlation, and thus there may not be a direct causal relationship. Please keep this in mind throughout this section.
26. I use the term frigidity here to mean lack of sexual desire. For a brief discussion of frigidity, see Lena Levine, M.D. and Mildred Gilmer, op. cit. For an article which states that clitoral orgasm is more typical than vaginal orgasm, see Albert Ellis, "Is the Vaginal Orgasm a Myth?", chap. xii in Alyappin Pillay and Albert Ellis, op. ci'. For another psychiatric opinion, see Karl A. Menninger, M.D., "Impotence and Frigidity," in Aron Krich (ed.), Men.
27. Human Female, p. 406. For a discussion of female and male potency, see Mead, Male and Female, chap. x, "Potency and Receptivity." For a more conservative discussion of marital sex adjustment, see Allan Fromme, M.D., Sex and Marriage (New York: Barnes and Noble Company, 1955), chap. v, "Sex in Marriage."
28. Many of these assertions concerning abstinence women are derived from my interviews. The importance of "respectability" to abstinence women was documented by Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Behavior, p. 239.
29. Human Male, p. 323. Ehrmann's findings are quite similar. For a summary of findings from various researches on what percentage of men desire virginal mates see: Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Behavior, p. 190.
30. My own studies and Dr. Ehrmann's work in Florida indicate that about half of the college men accept coitus where love and engagement is present. The transitional subtype of the double standard and permissiveness with affection is probably quite popular with college men. Ibid., pp. 185-86.
31. Many of the engaged couples in both the Terman and the Burgess and Wallin studies were indulging in coitus. Almost all of the men involved felt they were doing the right thing and their relationship was being strengthened. Thus there seems to be many men who accept coitus under these conditions.
32. Maupassant, op. cit. This is a classic account of the experiences a young innocent virgin encounters when she meets and marries a dashing young double-standard man. I highly recommend this book to all for insight into both the double standard and abstinence in their orthodox forms.
33. Mead, Male and Female, chap. xiv. This chapter is a most interesting discussion of this and other incompatibilities in our courtship and marriage institution. For evidence of the greater sexual role of the female in marriage today see: Kinsey, Human Female, pp. 336-65.
34. For a discussion of the above points see Human Male, chap. xvii; and Human Female, pp. 295, 332 passim.
35. Human Female, p. 316; Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., p. 344; Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Behavior, pp. 91, 232. Ehrmann found that for non-lovers the chief reason for restraint was lack of desire, with morals second. All three studies found morals a strong, but less important, reason for restraint among men. Religion too is a more powerful control for women.
36. Many of my interviewees expressed these feelings of discontent, although they intended to remain chaste.
37. Burgess and Wallin, p. 347.
|
