March 2009
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
		Apr »
	1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31

Pharmacy Links

HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS VS. ADULTS: EXTENSIVE HOMOSEXUALITY

27th March 2009

Slightly more than three quarters of the homosexual offenders vs. adults had had contact with more than 20 males since puberty. This proportion is 22 times that of the control group, also nearly six times that of the prison group, double that of the homosexual offenders vs. children, and half again as much as that of the homosexual offenders vs. minors. While other groups may be said to contain a core of males extensively experienced in homosexuality, the homosexual offender vs. adults group consists almost entirely of such males. This is to be expected: few men in the prison and control groups were interested in homosexual activity, and while many of the homosexual offenders vs. children and minors were interested, their age preferences limited their promiscuity. The male desirous of sexual activity with adult males, and who knows which situations are advantageous and which are unprofitable or dangerous, is in a unique position to fulfill his desires. Omitting prostitution, the most promiscuous heterosexual male would find it difficult to find seven female coital partners in one week even in a large city, whereas a knowledgeable homosexual could find as many males in two days or, with a bit of luck, in one.

The following discussion and comparison under this heading of “extensive homosexuality” will be confined to only those individuals who had over 20 male sexual partners.

Their promiscuity is reflected also in the high percentage of their partners who were “pickups”: nearly half said that over 80 per cent were “pickups,” and a full two thirds reported that over 60 per cent were. Unlike females, many males are interested simply in a rapid gratification of their sexual desire with as few preliminaries as possible and no emotional involvement; in brief, they are looking for a “pickup” or “one-night stand.” If such men are exclusively heterosexual, they have considerable difficulty in finding females willing to accept them on these terms without payment. However, if they are homosexually inclined, they can easily find other males with the same desire for a rapid and brief sexual encounter. Indeed, a minority of males, known colloquially as “oncers,” are not interested in continuing a sexual relationship beyond the first act—they are interested in new conquests only. Their reaction is analogous to that of the average person who has the opportunity to see again a motion picture he has already seen once: the initial experience was pleasurable, but why go through it again?

Since many of the partners of the homosexual offenders vs. adults are “pickups” and since the great majority are adults, it is not surprising to find more mutuality in the question of who initiated the sexual relationship than in the case of the homosexual offenders vs. children and minors. Forty-three per cent of the homosexual offenders vs. adults habitually made the first moves, 32 per cent usually let the other male make the overtures, and one quarter were equally balanced between these two alternatives. The pattern is in contrast to that of the homosexual offenders vs. children and minors who usually took the initiative, and also in contrast to that of the prison group who, despite their extensive homosexual experience, were strongly inclined to let the other males make the initial moves.

There is nothing unusual about the commercial, homosexual activity of the homosexual offenders vs. adults, of whom 70 per cent had paid or had been paid. Like the other homosexual offenders, rather few had been prostitutes (16 per cent). One quarter had paid, but had never been paid; the reverse was true of slightly more; and nearly one fifth had both taken and given payment. The division of those who paid but had never received pay and those who received pay but had never paid is a singularly efficient method of estimating the degree of homosexual interest. In a rank-order of those who only paid, the homosexual offenders lead and the prison group is last; in a rank-order of those who were only paid, the prison group leads the homosexual offenders.

Deep emotional involvements reported as love by the interviewees typify the homosexual offenders vs. adults with extensive homosexual histories. Eighty-one per cent of them said they had loved another male (a larger proportion than in any other group), and 63 per cent had loved more than one male—again the largest proportion. One can say that multiple homosexual love affairs are a characteristic of the group under discussion.

Of the groups involved in this comparison of individuals with extensive homosexual experience, the homosexual offenders vs. adults had the largest number (60 per cent) of persons who betrayed their homosexuality through behavior or dress. Half of those persons who reported or revealed homosexual mannerisms of any sort had mannerisms that were quite obvious. A detailed study of mannerisms has no place in this volume, but a. brief discussion is worth including. At one end of the range are the blatant mannerisms that for the most part are imitations of what our society regards as female behavior and dress. Because of historical factors and a primitive basic concept that all sociosexual activity must have one partner in a “masculine” and the other in a “feminine” role, a substantial number of males who are predominantly homosexual feel impelled to adopt what they consider female characteristics—for example, a high voice, fluttering hand gestures, long hair, plucked eyebrows, a hip-rolling walk, etc. The result in many cases is closer to caricature than imitation. It is ironic that in a sexual situation from which females are excluded (and even involving males who may be completely devoid of heterosexual interest) these allegedly feminine traits are employed despite their being logically incongruous. In some cases wherein a male construes his homosexual interest as evidence of a feminine component within himself, these obvious mannerisms express his feeling that he is acting according to his “true nature.” In other cases die behavior seems purely a matter of conforming to a stereotype, and the individual assumes or drops the mannerisms to suit die immediate situation. The efficacy of obvious mannerisms in obtaining sexual partners is dubious: many males, including predominantly homosexual males, are repelled rather than attracted. One of the illogicalities of homosexual life is that many of these men would like sexual relations with what they call “normal” or “straight” (i.e., heterosexual) partners. A homosexual male with this desire will express revulsion, in derogatory terms, at the idea of sexual contact with a known homosexual. On the other hand, obviousness has certain advantages: it clearly identifies the person as receptive to homosexual advances, and it does attract certain predominantly heterosexual males who regard him as being partly female. Indeed, some predominantly heterosexual males do not consider such a sexual liaison really homosexual.

At the other end of the range are subtle mannerisms that can be detected only by those who know a great deal about homosexuality. These mannerisms are for the most part slight exaggerations of, or departures from, socially acceptable behavior or dress. Any single item has little significance, but if a number exist, they form a symptom-syndrome that is quite diagnostic. Such subtle items are frequently associated with upper socioeconomic level tastes and behavior: over-meticulous dress, too well-groomed fingernails, a gentle modulated voice, an interest in aesthetics, etc. Such things have, in our culture, a vague feminine significance: women pay attention to clothes, men are less concerned; women tend their nails, men are careless about them; women are supposed to have quiet modulated voices, men are loud and assertive. In brief, we have the old stereotype of males being rough and coarse while women are gentle and dainty. Some less obvious mannerisms, however, have no social class association—for example, the glance that is maintained a fraction of a second too long, or the absence of the appraising look that predominantly heterosexual males automatically bestow on passing or nearby females.

Among the homosexual offenders with extensive homosexual experience, the homosexual offenders vs. adults expressed the least regret concerning their homosexuality; 46 per cent said they regretted it, including 27 per cent who reported much regret. Both percentages are considerably less than the equivalent figures reported by the other homosexual offenders. However, the members of the prison group with extensive homosexual experience expressed even far less. Again one wonders how much regret the homosexual offenders vs. adults would have expressed had we interviewed them prior to their initial convictions. Asking an offender to discount his conviction in evaluating whether or not he is sorry about his sexual way of life is almost asking the impossible.