The early life of the homosexual offender vs. children was characterized by poor relationships with both parents, and a large proportion of broken homes. As though seeking some emotional gratification outside the home, many of these future offenders had prepubertal sex play, largely homosexual. In addition, a large number (nearly one third) of the boys were sexually approached by adult males.

In adult life these offenders resemble the other homosexual offenders in emphasizing masturbation and in being quantitatively (and probably qualitatively) deficient in heterosexual activity. Even their frequency of marital coitus was rather low, and relatively few attempted extramarital coitus.

Their homosexuality far exceeds that of any group except the other homosexual offenders, and most of them were sexually interested in male (and even to some degree female) children and minors; other “reasons” for offense behavior (e.g., drunkenness, mental deficiency, etc.) are much less common, no one of them ever accounting for more than 10 per cent of the men.

In brief, we have here chiefly a group of males who are both homosexually and heterosexually oriented and who are either consciously sexually interested in children or at least willing to accept them as partners. This relative sexual flexibility as to gender and age (and some accept animals of other species) seems to place them in an ambiguous and stressful situation. They are, so to speak, neither fish nor fowl and have difficulty in sociosexual relationships.

*181\161\2*

The incest offenders vs. minors are not unusual with respect to orgasm during sleep. Their age-specific incidence—the percentages who had nocturnal emissions during given age-periods—is moderate to somewhat low among the unmarried, and among the married men it is moderate in comparison to other sex offenders declining from 48 to 33 per cent through the third decade of life. In age-period 36-40 they drop to third from the lowest rank with 24 per cent. In dream content, this group of offenders reported the fewest (2 per cent, or one male) who had homosexual dreams, and none had sadistic or zoophilic dreams. In summary, nocturnal emissions and dreams were rather unimportant in this group of offenders, and the dream content was comparatively limited. Some 17 per cent (the third largest percentage) stated that their emissions were unaccompanied by dreams.

The frequencies with which the incest offenders vs. minors had nocturnal emissions tend to be low prior to age twenty-one and moderate thereafter, and, as is usual among sex offenders, are always substantially less than those of the controls.

The proportion of total outlet contributed by nocturnal emissions is, generally speaking, moderate for both the single and married incest offenders. Among the single this ranges from 2 to 9 per cent (in contrast to 12 to 14 per cent for the control group) and among the married from 2 to 4 per cent (similar to the control group) until their late forties when the proportion increases to 7 per cent, the highest in that age-period.

*139\161\2*

A larger proportion (one third) of the aggressors vs. minors had had specifically sexual contact with animals than any other group. To be sure, only nine individuals constituted this third (hence frequencies are not analyzed), but we feel reasonably safe in attributing an unusual incidence of animal contact to the group as a whole. This incidence is more impressive when one realizes that their background is not notably rural. In age-specific incidence these aggressors rank first by large margins in the two age-periods (puberty-15 and 16-20) for which we have data, a huge 25 per cent being involved in the first period and 17 per cent in the last. These percentages are more than half again as large as the next largest. In their early teens these men ranked fourth in the proportion of total sexual outlet derived from contact with animals, the proportion being 2 per cent.

The incidence is not foreshadowed by nor reflected in the masturbation fantasy or dream content of these sex offenders; none had such fantasy and only one individual dreamed of animal contact. This lack of any obvious psychologic component to their sexual activity with animals fits in with our general concept of the aggressors vs. minors as being unusually sexually active individuals who are relatively uninhibited and, so to speak, willing to “try anything for kicks.” Note their high incidence of homosexual experience. Some aggressive males pride themselves on their indiscriminate sexuality and diversity of experience. Indeed, society (or, to be accurate, the adult males in society) renders such polymorphous persons a curious mixture of approval and disapproval. Like the approval accorded the ultravirile frontiersman, who claims a willingness to do battle with man, beast, or the devil himself, there is a sort of approval bestowed on the man who is willing to “take on” sexually anything animate. This social attitude is reflected in some folkloristic slogans stating that everything should be judged only by whether it is suitable for eating or sexual gratification, and also in some pornographic cartoon strips, in which a man frustrated in heterosexual attempts turns to homosexuality and/or animal contacts.

*97\161\2*

Fourteen per cent of the offenders vs. minors had had postpubertal sexual relationship with animals—a moderate proportion, relatively speaking. Indeed, a higher figure might have been anticipated inasmuch as the offenders vs. minors were more strongly rural in background than most groups.

As usual, this activity was confined almost exclusively to the second decade of life. Beginning with 7 per cent who had animal contact between puberty and age fifteen, the age-specific incidence for unmarried offenders drops to 6, 3, and finally—in age-period 26-30—to 0.0 per cent. These are moderate figures compared to other groups, and follow the usual declining trend. The frequencies are also moderate, the average (median) offender vs. minors having had animal contacts between 4 and 5 times per year. The mean frequency varies from once in three to four weeks between puberty and age fifteen to once in three weeks between ages sixteen to twenty. The proportion of total sexual outlet derived from this activity was always moderate, being between 1 per cent and half of 1 per cent.

*55\161\2*

Since the essence of this study is comparison, virtually all our final statistics were at some stage in the analysis rank-ordered—that is, arranged in order in some scale of comparison. The value of a rank-order depends, of course, upon the range of variation; the smaller the range, the less useful is the rank-order. For example, a rank-order of the simple incidence (ever-never) of masturbation is rather meaningless since the comparative groups are all so near 100 per cent, and their positions in the order are dependent upon minor extraneous factors such as age, the number married, etc.

The general position of a group rather than its exact position is the important thing. It matters little whether, by virtue of some fraction, a group ranks second or third; what does matter is that it ranks high.

When two or three groups of a tripartite larger group (e.g., offenders vs. children, vs. minors, and vs. adults) are contiguous in a rank-order, this contiguity is most unlikely to be chance. The position of one group might be said to substantiate the position of the other.

In addition to noting the positions of specific groups in a rank-order, valuable knowledge may be obtained by looking for general trends: do the offenders whose sexual objects were children tend to concentrate in the rank-order? Do some groups reveal a correlation between rank-order position and increasing age? These and similar questions have been routinely raised and dealt with in our analyses.

*12\161\2*