The number with coital experience by a given age is relatively small in early life. Some 80 per cent ultimately had premarital coitus, but in this instance 80 per cent is a rather low figure, exceeded by all groups except the controls, two of the homosexual-offender groups, and the peepers (the latter being a youthful and restrained group). By age fourteen one fifth (the third smallest percentage recorded) had had premarital coitus; by age sixteen 35 per cent, again the third smallest percentage; and by age twenty the incest offenders vs. adults once more occupy the third lowest position in the rank-order with 65 per cent of their members experienced. The control-group individuals usually surpass them by any given age, and the only less experienced groups are homosexual offenders.
The age-specific incidence of premarital coitus with companions is quite low among these offenders. Between puberty and fifteen they are third from the bottom of the rank-order with about one fifth of their members having such coitus. In the next two age-periods, 16—20 and 21-25, they are second from the bottom with slightly less than half of them involved. In these same age-periods 60 and 73 per cent of the relatively conservative control group had had premarital coitus with companions.
There is nothing unusual in the number of incest offenders vs. adults who had coitus with prostitutes nor in the number whose first coitus was with prostitutes. However, the number who had had such coitus by a given age is always relatively low because of the general restraint exhibited in premarital coitus. The age-specific incidence of premarital coitus with prostitutes is also low to moderate. However, it is noteworthy that in the very age-period, 21-25, in which most were marrying, the age-specific incidence of coitus with prostitutes exceeds that of coitus with companions. We seem to have here die dichotomy between the “good girl” whom you marry and the “bad girl” (or prostitute) with whom you have coitus.
In terms of frequency of premarital coitus with companions, the incest offenders vs. adults rank low to intermediate wherever our data permit calculation. Of those who had premarital coitus, the average (median) individual had it about 20 to 25 times a year between age sixteen and twenty-five.
The incest offenders vs. adults reported a total of five premarital companions, the smallest number of any group, but the fourth largest number of prostitutes (16) prior to marriage. Summing up these data, one gains the following impression: these offenders, being traditionalists, subscribed to the standard that nonmarital coitus is a sin to be avoided, but if one cannot avoid it, one should go to prostitutes rather than seduce “good girls.” This philosophy results in less premarital coitus, relatively small numbers of nonprostitute companions, and relatively large numbers of prostitute partners. The proportion of total outlet constituted by premarital coitus with companions is moderate. However, like other incest offenders, the incest offenders vs. adult daughters derived a relatively large proportion of their total sexual outlet from premarital coitus with prostitutes at ages sixteen to twenty, when they are in fourth place, and at ages twenty-one to twenty-five, when they are in second place.
The major reason for their premarital restraint becomes apparent when one examines the various factors that reportedly held them back. The incest offenders vs. adults occupy first place among those who gave moral considerations as a reason (36 per cent), and they also had by far the largest number (24 per cent) who reported that fear of public opinion restrained them. Lastly, they again are first in rank-order (29 per cent) among those strongly desiring to marry virginal women. In brief, the incest offenders vs. adults appear as our most moral, traditional, and conservative group. Only moderate to low numbers of them reported that other factors, such as fear of disease and pregnancy and lack of opportunity, operated as important restraints; the incest offender vs. adults is unabashedly moral. He does not conceal this fact by rationalizing, and the importance he attaches to morality correspondingly reduces the importance of other restraints.
*156\161\2*
