The category of offenders vs. minors was established for two purposes: to separate more sharply the offenders vs. adults from the offenders vs. children, and to test the idea that there is a discrete “type” of male sexually preferring females at or just past the age of menarche.

Being an intermediate buffer group, the offenders vs. minors are motley. Perhaps as many as one fifth of them appear indistinguishable from the offenders vs. children: we see again the pedophiles, mental defectives, senile deteriorates, and drunks. Indeed, around 8 per cent of the offenders vs. minors were also convicted of offenses vs. children. On the other hand, certain varieties seen among the offenders vs. children are rarer among the offenders vs. minors: the psychotics and the cases of underdeveloped sociosexuality dwindle to the near vanishing point.

The great bulk of the offenders vs. minors may be conveniently classified into two varieties: subculture offenders and near-peer offenders.

The subculture offenders are those who belong to a portion of society, a subculture, which regards as a suitable sexual object any female past menarche, or even a prepubescent female if she is of adult size. In envisioning such a subculture one at first thinks of the rural mountain people, but this same low age limit may be found among the lower socioeconomic stratum in big cities. The existence of this subculture is clearly indicated in a tabulation of the ages of the wives of offenders vs. minors at the time of marriage. In cases of multiple marriage, the youngest wife was chosen. In the tabulation there is a bimodal distribution of cases: 25 per cent of the wives were twenty-one years old or older, rather few were twenty (5 per cent) or nineteen (10 per cent), but 17 per cent were eighteen, 19 per cent seventeen, and 15 per cent sixteen. In other words, half of the brides were aged sixteen to eighteen; about a tenth were younger. It is obvious that a man who married, say, a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old is not going to regard a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old as too young for a sexual relationship.

Among the offenders vs. children we differentiated amoral delinquents and situational cases; both of these tend to blend in with the subculture offenders when one examines offenders vs. minors. In the absence of questions and answers designed specifically to distinguish between varieties of offenders, it is hard to make a distinction between a man who has coitus with a minor because he thinks it a licit normal act and a man who is permanently or temporarily indifferent to the age of his coital partner.

A typical example of a subculture offender is a thirty-four-year-old man who had lived most of his life in Kentucky. His premarital coitus was with partners of rather widely diverse ages; in fact his first coitus, at age thirteen, was with a woman of thirty, and it is significant that he, rather than she, made the initial overtures. At nineteen he married a girl aged sixteen. The marriage was a happy one, but she died after ten years leaving him at twenty-nine a widower with two children. His postmarital life seems to have been similar to his premarital life, and by age thirty-three he was regularly dating a girl of fifteen, nearly the same age as his daughter. After three months, during which coitus was a regular occurrence, the girl’s father made the complaint that resulted in the man’s arrest and conviction. The prison psychologist’s remarks are worth quoting: “[He] cannot see that any illegality was involved. . . . The subject leads a casual life. . . . He found a mutually pleasing relationship involving few objections so he made the most of it. He is not criminally aggressive nor does he thrust himself forward where his attentions are unwanted.”

The near-peer offenders are simply males who are so close in age to their “victims” that a sexual relationship is psychologically and socially appropriate although illegal. A classic case is that of a seventeen-year-old boy and a fifteen-year-old girl. In prison, where the boy was serving six months for statutory rape, the psychologist described him as “… an embarrassed male of seventeen who had intercourse with a girl fifteen. He says she offered no protest and he thought there would be no legal complications. He has had intercourse with girls of the community for a matter of two years and saw no reason why it should not be continued. . . . [His] social group fully approves of such a pastime procedure. Much fault seems to rest in the willingness of the girls. . . .”

In some instances the age difference may seemingly be large enough to bar a person from the near-peer group—say a difference of six years. However, if the male is socially (and usually mentally) retarded while the female is precocious, he may still be classed as a near-peer case. A backward twenty-year-old who tends to associate with persons in their late teens is not far removed socially from a precocious fourteen-year-old girl who also associates chiefly with those in their late teens. Indeed, in urban juvenile gangs the gang (peer group) often has an age-range of fourteen to twenty. A liaison between an older gang leader of twenty and a “deb” of fourteen would be considered as a mating of peers.

*58\161\2*

Our control group was obtained primarily through a sampling technique described in our previous volumes. We selected a well-defined social or professional group and attempted to interview every member. Realizing the danger of selectivity in sampling on a voluntary basis, we worked with each chosen group, returning again and again, if necessary, until we had interviewed at least half (and usually nearer three quarters) of its members. We do not stop when we have interviewed those who came to us freely or with little prompting; we continue with what at times must be annoying persistence, obtaining the case histories of persons who come to us as a result of the pressure exerted by other group members, their conscience, and our polite harassment. Once we have the opportunity to talk with these reluctant and hence especially valuable individuals, they almost always become quite cooperative and ascribe their previous foot-dragging to their ignorance of our methods and attitudes. Approximately one third of the control-group individuals derive from groups wherein we interviewed 90 to 100 per cent of the constituent members.

Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey, who began and directed this research until his death in 1956, was never impressed by the desirability of keeping a record of refusal rates—the proportion of those who were asked for an interview but who refused. He felt that an individual should not be considered a refusal until he or she had been the recipient of Dr. Kinsey’s persuasiveness, which was extraordinary. However, throughout most of the history of the research, and particularly in the earlier years, the interviewers were frequently in a position which made the recording of refusals almost meaningless; when beginning with a new group of subjects it is imperative to interview as large a number as possible in as short a time as possible so that there will be a sizable proportion of the group that can report favorably on the experience and influence others to contribute their histories. To use a military analogy, once a breakthrough has been achieved there must be no delay in pressing onward. This means that one must take first those who are most willing to be interviewed. Afterward one can afford to return to those who originally were reluctant and spend a considerable amount of time on a second or even third solicitation.

Let us say, for example, that we have been working with a large group, one too large to interview in its entirety. We have interviewed 50 per cent of the members; we feel that we have sufficiently diluted the volunteer bias found among those who were anxious to contribute their histories; we are not particularly interested in having more from the group, hence we stop. Now the question arises, inasmuch as the whole group was solicited (even though indirectly), is the refusal rate

50 per cent? Or are only those who were individually and briefly solicited to be considered refusals? Or should we count only those who rejected the second and serious solicitation? The problem is in some instances hopelessly confused by the fact that we often do not record the name of the person solicited and cannot determine whether he or she subsequently gave a history to another interviewer.

Nevertheless, it is indefensible thus to excuse ourselves from considering the problem of refusals as a statistical factor. Consequently, in obtaining the “hospital sample,” the only major interviewing endeavor in recent years, we arranged our sampling procedure so that an accurate account of refusals could be made. In this sample we first ascertained the males who were eligible for inclusion in the control group, and we then solicited each person in specific terms so that a clear-cut acceptance or refusal resulted. Out of 164 requests we suffered six refusals; also two men began interviews but refused to finish.

While we have dealt thus far with the question of sampling within the groups chosen for this purpose, we have not touched on the equally important question of which groups were chosen and why. Since at this point our concern is with the 477 males constituting the control group, this is no place in which to discuss in detail the sampling procedure of the entire research, and a brief description must suffice. The sampling procedure was to ascertain the weaknesses of our existing sample and with these in mind to select, from whatever groups seemed available to us, those that would best remedy the weaknesses. For example, at one time we realized that we had very few older, never-married women in our total sample; consequently, we arranged matters so that we were invited to address an educational conference whose membership included a large number of never-married female teachers, many of whom were of the age we desired.

While we are satisfied with our sampling within each chosen group, we are not satisfied with our sample of groups. Various imbalances in terms of age, education, religion, and other factors exist. In selecting our control group—which we wished to make as similar as possible to the prison group and sex offenders with regard to socioeconomic status —these defects hampered us. However, in view of the magnitude of our task and the limited means at our disposal we feel no apologies are called for.

With two exceptions, the term “sampling procedure” can scarcely be applied to our prison group. In the early stages of the research, when much interviewing was being done at Indiana correctional institutions, Dr. Kinsey did not view the inmates as a discrete group that should be differentiated from people outside; instead, he looked upon the institutions as reservoirs of potential interviewees, literally captive subjects.

This viewpoint resulted in there being no differentiation in our 1948 volume between persons with and without prison experience. By 1953 when we published our second volume we had found that the sexual behavior outside prison displayed by persons previously or subsequently imprisoned differed from the sexual behavior of persons never imprisoned; consequently, persons with prison experience have since been treated separately. At any rate, the great majority of the prison group was collected omnivorously without any sampling plan—we simply interviewed all who volunteered and when this supply of subjects was exhausted we solicited other inmates essentially at random.

One instance of planned sampling in the prison group occurred at San Quentin when Dr. Gebhard and Dr. Pomeroy asked the prison administration to select an inmate group it felt would best represent the total inmate population. The administrators chose those who were working at the quarry; here the only known bias was that the men could not be serious escape risks and had to be in at least average physical condition. There were some 50 in all, and we made an attempt to interview each one. Of these men, three refused and one, through some oversight, was not solicited; counting him, this gives a refusal rate of 8 per cent. This quarry sample we compared to the total prison group on a small number of behavioral items and the differences appear inconsequential.

The second instance of planned sampling took place at Soledad where all males who appeared obviously homosexual or who proved to be problems because of their homosexuality were segregated in one wing of a building—Z wing. We decided to sample Z wing as thoroughly as possible, and succeeded in interviewing 111 males—everyone in Z wing—plus two who had recently been returned to the general inmate population.

The procedures used in accumulating our sample of sex offenders varied according to circumstances, and each institution must therefore be dealt with separately. In each we found more sex offenders than were officially listed; men are listed in prisons on the basis of their current offense. Prior offenses, unless notable, are often forgotten and some minor ones may not appear on official records.

At the Indiana State Farm we had no plan of sampling—we simply sought out sex offenders and, after a time, avoided the more common types of offense (e.g., statutory rape) and directed our efforts toward the rarer types.

At San Quentin, where we interviewed intermittently from 1949 to 1954, we originally followed a rather simple pragmatic plan: to obtain a numerically adequate sample of every type of sex offender. This led, naturally, to an eventual emphasis on the less common types. Toward the end of the San Quentin interviewing, in November 1953, we inaugurated a more rigorous sampling plan. We first obtained a census of the inmates currently serving sentences for sex offenses and then decided to attempt to interview all the men convicted of certain unusual offenses and to make a random sample of men convicted of other commoner offenses.

*15\161\2*

Main course: this is easy ground as most restaurants will serve grilled fish or steak. But if this becomes monotonous select from other dishes carefully, choosing lean meat or fish dishes first or salads with cold meats that do not include sausage. Of course, nothing fried. Enjoy all the vegetables that are in season unless they are fried or come under a sauce. No French fries but a small portion of boiled potatoes is fine, or one small baked potato.

Beware of selecting pies or casseroles because of their fatty meat content and the flour that will have been used for thickening the sauces.

Sweet: skip icecream and puddings. If you must have something sweet choose a piece of fresh fruit or fresh fruit salad (no cream). Unless you are on a strict diet a small piece of cheese with a couple of crackers is a good substitute.

Alcohol: should be kept down to a minimum. Perhaps a vodka with soda water not tonic before the meal and only a glass of white wine to follow. To quench the thirst and keep the consumption of wine to a minimum also drink mineral water.

*161/153/1*

Independent health screening centres to carry out check-ups are being established in a number of major cities by medical groups — in London one run by the British United Provident Association is known internationally — but if he wishes any doctor can instigate the most essential tests himself and so keep costs down. (Medical centres are expensive. Fortunate are those valued executives working for far-sighted companies who are sent to these centres as a matter of policy and insurance.) The comprehensive tests cover problems peculiar to men in this age group and are designed to show up hidden troubles should they exist. As a matter of survival as much as for peace of mind, every man after forty whether he is in the grip of M-M or not, should have himself checked.

After discussing the patient’s medical history and lifestyle the first tests invariably concern the heart. A doctor listens to the beat, checks the pulse and takes a reading of the blood pressure. If there is anything unusual he may recommend a visit to a heart specialist for an electrocardiogram reading to check where the abnormality exists. At medical centres electrocardiogram readings are taken as a matter of course.

If there is a blood pressure problem tablets are prescribed to bring the reading to an acceptable level. Many men are recommended low-fat or low-salt diets.

*126/153/1*

While some dash about rampant, sex on the brain, an erection ready at a moment’s notice, an equal number enter a No-Go limbo where the male-menopause brings their sexlife to a halt, the penis flaccid. It is the start of sexual trauma. Without appreciating what is happening to them they discover their sex drive has been curbed and they go into deep decline, each man terrified that his penis no longer works. Why?

For no other reason than the fact that the unwanted mixture of depression, anxiety and fatigue that makes up the M-M crisis has created in them a despair far outweighing anything ever before experienced and debilitated both mind and body. Sexlife stops. The one activity that is recognized as being most conducive to relaxation and the perfect antidote to depression is the one activity their mind rejects. When the world appears to be on the verge of collapse, with his emotions in turmoil how can a man think of sex? Many cannot.

*89/153/1*

In keeping up, others involve themselves in their son’s activities as diverse as going camping with the gang or taking up pot-holing or canoeing. For many this is a great pleasure especially if father and son are close and have enjoyed a sporting kindredship since the boy’s childhood. However a number of fathers find that it is only when nearing forty that fitness and sport become important and many sons at this point resent what they see as their fathers’ intrusion into their lives.

And while they may admire the son’s effortless ability to have a life full of fun, a number will desperately demand acknowledgement from the son for the great generosity they are bestowing on him. (This is not a reaction exclusive to menopausal men.) As a result some are unnecessarily strict with the son. Family disagreements can be vociferous especially if there are younger children within the family to be compared with, children who because of their age are more docile and stay-at-home. This can be a trying time until the M-M father accepts his son’s youthful need for adventure, experiment and independence.

*53/153/1*

It is not unknown however for some doctors in the United States to prescribe hormone injections as the antidote to M-M especially if their patients lay the blame for their current problems on a lack of sex drive or poor erection. But this is increasingly being regarded as wasteful treatment unless it has first been established decisively by clinical tests that hormone imbalance exists. If, as is most likely, the man’s production of testosterone is normal, hormone injections are wasteful, and expensive. Many therapists make the charge that these doctors prescribe injections (where imbalance is not proved) because it is easier to apply a syringe than attempt by understanding and consultation to get a man through his menopause by bolstering or supporting his sagging emotional system. Injections they say do no more to cure the man than do the hundreds of Valium tablets supplied by other doctors.

Hormone injections however do have their uses and often a sexually active man in his sixties finds they boost his sexual energy effectively. These hormone injections also form part of geriatric therapy.

*16/153/1*