MISCELLANEOUS SEX OFFENDERS: OFFENDERS VS. SISTERS
Incest with sisters seems a phenomenon of early life: five of our eight cases were aged seventeen to nineteen at the time, and an additional two were twenty-two. This youthfulness is logical—incest is unlikely among older individuals who have left the parental home and who have developed the ability to obtain sexual partners. None of the males were married at the time of the offense and only one of the eight appears to have had a high coital frequency at that time. As to their heterosexual lives in general, not much can be said, but they tended to have few female friends during their late teens. It is, however, significant that the sisters were without exception younger than the males, and half were younger by five or more years. One sister was a child, two were adult (eighteen), and five were between twelve and fourteen inclusive. There is the suggestion of exploitation in this age discrepancy, and in the case of the child-sister force was employed. In at least half of the cases the incest was a well-established activity, in two cases it was brief, and in another two the duration is unknown. Additional evidence that this incest is scarcely an impetuous spur-of- the-moment act lies in the fact that none of the males were intoxicated at the time—the usual “I was drunk” excuse is conspicuously absent. There were no alcoholics in the group, and only two heavy to moderately heavy drinkers.
While half had had some homosexual experience, there were no well-developed cases of homosexuality.
The incest offenders vs. sisters do not appear to be given to other sex offenses or to any crime. Five had no other sex offense, two had been convicted of exhibition, and one was an aggressor vs. children. Their nonsexual offenses seem, aside from one forgery conviction, trival: drunk and disturbing the peace, assault and battery, disorderly conduct, etc.—of these there were four instances. The picture is not one of professional criminality nor of aggression.
Five of the eight had a definite mental handicap. Three were feebleminded and two were referred to as “borderline.” One other was labeled “dull” by the interviewer, another was classed “low average,” and only one was of average mentality. Along with their mental defectiveness, half of them had a low sexual responsiveness to visual stimuli. Mental deficiency, often including that of the sister, plus a Tobacco Road family milieu seem to be the essential factors in these cases.
In summary, one is left with the impression of a group of individuals who are neither antisocial nor drunk nor badly maladjusted—they are simply well-intentioned but stupid. Consequently they blunder into conflict with society in the sexual as well as other aspects of their lives.
*245\161\2*
RelatedPosts:
Tags: Erectile Dysfunction, Men’s Health