Unnecessary jealousy is the most tragic of all. If one could only realize its implications, one would never be guilty of it. It implies that one does not believe himself attractive enough to hold another except by force. And that is an insult to oneself or at least an indication of an inferiority complex. Or it implies that one’s husband or wife is insincere or incapable of a deep and lasting emotion. If this is false, then the jealous person himself has shown that he does not really know or love the other. On the other hand, if it is true, why should he continue to desire the love of such a one?
Some foolish people, however, even enter marriage with the assumption that jealous watchfulness is the normal thing and may be heard to boast how they are not going to let their husband or wife out from under their eye. The popular moral tradition is partly to blame for this because it tacitly approves jealousy and sometimes even murder (“the unwritten law”) in the case of marital infidelity. It assumes that love, even though it has to be hypocritical, is a duty, and that failure to do one’s duty merits revenge. To call love a duty is obviously a contradiction in terms, and it is difficult to see how any intelligent person could value dutiful love. The double standard of morality also has led many women to believe that all men are naturally unfaithful, and therefore to be guarded carefully.
*94\275\8*
-
-
A man with acute bacterial prostatitis should stay on antibiotics for six weeks, even if his symptoms get better right away. Bacterial prostatitis could be compared to another stealthy infection too easily harbored by the body— tuberculosis—in that if it’s not obliterated right away, it becomes much more difficult to cure. Somehow, over time, the bacteria become tougher to eliminate. Eradicating acute bacterial prostatitis the first time around, by relentless treatment with antibiotics, is the best way to avoid developing chronic bacterial prostatitis.
The same holds true for patients with chronic bacterial prostatitis. Again, says the University of Maryland urologist, “Any treatment with antibiotics will help somebody initially; a week to ten days’ worth will get you through the first episode. Then a few months later, the infection might come back.” In many cases, the infection goes away every time with treatment; if, a few months later, it returns, it will vanish again after another round of antibiotics.
For men with nonbacterial prostatitis, the anti-UTI antibiotics are useless: If there’s no infection, and thus no bacteria, why take bacteria-killing drugs? No reason. (However, some doctors try fourteen days’ worth of drugs, such as erythromycin and tetracycline, commonly used to treat other kinds of pathogens, as a first step. There is no real information on whether this is effective.) For the most part, all doctors can do currently for this kind of prostatitis is try to give relief from the symptoms.
Sometimes there’s a clear cause-and-effect relationship at work in prostatitis— the insertion of a urinary catheter, for example, during a medical procedure. This causes more trauma in the urinary tract for some men than for others.
Other risk factors include a recent bladder or kidney infection; an enlarged prostate (BPH, in which the prostate grows to constrict the urethra and can have a harmful effect on the urinary tract); and rectal intercourse, also associated with trauma to the urinary tract.
In bacterial prostatitis, the question is, how did the bacteria get into the urinary tract? In the instances mentioned above, bacteria may be able to invade the prostate from the urethra when infected urine “backs up” into the prostate ducts. (During unprotected rectal intercourse, too, rectal bacteria can be picked up by the penis and drawn into the urethra, and then can make their way into the urinary tract.)
But for nonbacterial prostatitis, and prostatodynia, the basic answer is that nobody knows. There have been severe cases in which men have had their prostates removed—and yet the symptoms failed to go away. Which leads to the question of whether nonbacterial prostatitis and prostatodynia are really happening in the prostate at all? “Prostatitis is a catch-all term,” says the University of Maryland urologist. “Too often, any time a patient comes in with pelvic pain, rectal pain, lower back pain—the doctor says, ‘You’ve probably got a touch of prostatitis.’ But a lot of men are told they have prostatitis when they’ve really got something else.”
*310\201\8*
Tags: Erectile Dysfunction, Men’s Health
-
Have you ever focused the sun’s rays through a magnifying glass? The glass harnesses just a fraction of the sun’s colossal energy, but the focused light beam is powerful enough to burn a hole through a leaf or to start a small fire.
A laser is focused light, and it’s an awesome source of energy that cuts a path wherever it’s aimed. Two distinctive methods—called “non-contact” and “contact”—are available for laser prostatectomy. Although both spring from the same energy source—light—they involve different techniques.
Non-contact techniques include the TULIP (Transurethral Ultrasound-Guided Laser-Induced Prostatectomy) device and the side-firing Urolase Fiber. Both produce temperatures from 60 to 100 degrees. (The energy varies with the strength of the beam. Picture a flashlight shining in a dark room. As the beam spreads and diffuses, so does its energy; at its outermost edges, it is least powerful.) The TULIP device features an ultrasound scanner, which gives surgeons a picture of the areas the laser will target and allows for greater accuracy. The side-firing technique is performed through a cystoscope, whose tiny camera allows surgeons to view the procedure on a television monitor. This also is called the VLAP (Visual Laser-Assisted Prostatectomy) procedure. These non-contact techniques use a transurethral probe, inserted through the tip of the penis, that beams the laser at a 90-degree angle directly into the prostate.
Like thermotherapy, non-contact laser prostatectomy does not remove BPH tissue. Instead, space is created around the urethra when the “zapped” tissue dies, sloughs away, and is absorbed back into the body. Because of this, both non-contact techniques cause swelling in the prostate (just as tissue swells around a burn), resulting in obstruction and the need for a catheter for several days in some men. Really hot temperatures (which may be needed for severe obstruction) can blast holes in the prostate; these can cause irritative symptoms until the tissue has dissolved into tiny particles that are flushed out over time during urination, which will result in the gradual widening of the prostatic urethra.
*271\201\8*
Tags: Erectile Dysfunction, Men’s Health
-
Some men go right to a specialty physician, a urologist, for help with urinary problems, but most men start out with a generalist—their family practitioner or internist. Most likely, all of these doctors will approach your symptoms the same way—there should be a digital rectal examination (discussed below) and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. Most family physicians will go ahead and treat a problem such as a urinary tract infection. However, if your family doctor suspects that something else is causing this infection—if it keeps coming back, for example, or if it’s accompanied by other symptoms, you may be referred to a urologist for more specific testing. You should also be referred to a urologist if you are diagnosed as having BPH, prostatitis, or prostate cancer, or if you need urologic surgery or other procedures such as cystoscopy.
Differential Diagnosis of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: Besides BPH, What Else Could Be Causing This?
Obstructive Symptoms
Stricture Cancer
Neurogenic bladder* Medication
Irritative Symptoms
Infection—bladder or prostate Bladder tumor Bladder stone Neurogenic bladder*
*This is bladder trouble caused by a neurological problem, such as Parkinson’s disease.
*233\201\8*
Tags: Erectile Dysfunction, Men’s Health
-
Other problems listed in this University of Colorado study come under the category of communication failure. Some guidelines for drug dosages (printed in medical reference books and other sources) are not appropriate for the particular intensity of cancer, pain. And sometimes—this is increasingly common—if a patient is being looked after by a group of physicians, there may not be a clear understanding of who’s responsible for pain management. The pain may “fall through the cracks.”
You’re a patient; what can you do? If you’re suffering terrible pain, talk to your physician. If you’re being treated by a group practice, demand that one doctor oversee your pain and other symptoms. If you’re still not satisfied with the care you’re getting, look for another doctor—preferably, someone who treats many cancer patients and is attuned to their particular, intense pain.
Another option is to contact the National Hospice Organization, a group whose goal is to “enable patients to carry on an alert, pain-free life and to manage other symptoms,” so their days “may be spent with dignity and quality at home or in a home-like setting.” (See “Where to Get Help,” at the back of this book.)
Most hospice programs—and there are hundreds throughout the country—are directed by physicians, and care is administered by a spectrum of health-care professionals, including nurses, psychologists, members of the clergy, and social workers. Care is available twenty-four hours a day, every day, and it is centered around patients and their families.
There are also some regulatory issues, the University of Colorado study showed. When potentially addictive narcotics (strong painkillers like morphine) are involved, so is the government. That’s why most of these drugs are called “controlled substances.” Some governmental red tape can include limits on refills; however, this is not an insurmountable hassle—it just means patients need to get their doctors to write new prescriptions when their medication runs out.
*194\201\8*
Tags: Erectile Dysfunction, Men’s Health
-
This technique sounds great: For starters, it involves no surgery. Instead, extremely cold liquid nitrogen is used to freeze the entire prostate, causing cancer cells within the gland to rupture as they begin to thaw.
The idea itself is not new. Many years ago, when the technique was first introduced, the freezing was accomplished through the urethra. Today, using ultrasound to guide them, doctors circulate the freezing liquid nitrogen through five metallic probes, which are placed in the prostate gland through the perineum. The freezing continues until the ultrasound shows that an “iceball” has been created. The procedure can take longer than an hour, and the hospital stay is generally one or two days.
Doctors who perform cryoablation (also called cryotherapy) must be well-acquainted with transrectal ultrasound, so they can be sure that the prostate is frozen completely. During the procedure, the tissue around the urethra is heated so it won’t be destroyed along with the rest of the prostate.
The advantages of cryoablation include a short hospital stay and the absence of serious problems with urinary control. Fans of this procedure emphasize cryoablation’s ease of treatment and freedom from early side effects.
However, only about one-third of men appear to be potent afterward; this may be because, in an attempt to destroy all the cancer, many doctors who perform this procedure deliberately attempt to freeze the nerve bundles that are essential for erection.
The big unknown here is whether cryoablation actually cures prostate cancer. Prostate cancer begins as a “multifocal” disease—many bits of cancer cells sprouting up in many sites within the prostate. So to cure it, it’s necessary to eliminate the entire prostate. But that doesn’t happen with cryoablation. During the procedure, the tissue around the urethra is protected by heat. Does the heat that preserves the urethra also spare a few scattered cancer cells? This is not clear.
*156\201\8*
Tags: Erectile Dysfunction, Men’s Health
-
In the matter of siblings, the homosexual offenders vs. adults are distinctive in two respects. First, a relatively large number (14 per cent) were only children. Second, if there were siblings, the homosexual offender vs. adults tended to be the youngest, the proportion far exceeding statistical probability. In all our comparative groups the usual picture is for some percentage to be the youngest of several siblings, some the eldest—the majority are intermediate, being neither the youngest nor eldest. Only two groups, the peepers and the homosexual offenders vs. adults, depart from this pattern: more of their members were the youngest rather than the intermediates. On the assumption that youngest children, only children, or children reared alone receive preferential, or at least special, treatment, it is interesting to note that nearly half of the homosexual offenders vs. adults fall into these categories. This percentage is exceeded only by the peepers.
To be specific, 18 per cent of the homosexual offenders vs. adults were reared without the presence of other siblings in the home; this is the second largest percentage recorded. They also had the next fewest number of siblings, 3.7. They were equally deficient in brothers and sisters: 35 per cent lacked brothers and the same percentage lacked sisters. No other group had as many brotherless members, a fact that may be significant in the light of the offense. Nevertheless, these homosexual offenders still had more brothers than sisters, the ratio being 114.3 brothers for every 100 sisters.
We have seen that homosexual offenders are typified by a poor relationship with their fathers, and this is especially true of the homosexual offenders vs. adults. More got along poorly (36 per cent) with their fathers than well (33 per cent); they had, in fact, one of the worst paternal relationships.
The relationship with the mother was better, but still below average. As in the case of other homosexual offenders, there was a preference for the mother—a more extreme maternal partiality than existed among the other homosexual offenders. Fifty-eight per cent got along better with their mothers and only 27 per cent got along with both parents equally well. This is not surprising, since of all the homosexual offenders the offenders vs. adults had the best maternal relationship, poor though it was.
Fifty-one per cent also came from broken homes, a lower percentage than obtains among the other homosexual offenders. However, as in the case of the others, there is a tendency for the breakup to have occurred when the child was under five years of age. In fact the average (median) individual was 4.6 years old, the youngest age recorded.
The homosexual offender vs. adults shares with the other homosexual offenders the misfortune of interparental friction. When they were between fourteen and seventeen years old, 35 per cent had parents who did not get along well together, a percentage exceeded by only two groups, one of which is the homosexual offenders vs. children.
Since fewer homosexual offenders vs. adults than other homosexual offenders came from broken homes, one finds a relatively large number (over two thirds) who lived 15 or more years in a home where both a husband and wife were present. While this percentage is well below that of the control group, it is exceeded by only four sex-offender groups, and only by one or two percentage points. Conversely, there is nothing distinctive about the homosexual offender vs. adults in the number of years he spent in an all-female household.
At ages ten to eleven the homosexual offenders vs. adults had a good social relationship with other children and the best social relationship of all with female children (despite their relative lack of sisters)—an extreme example of the general tendency of homosexual offenders, who rank first, second, and third in the number and proportion of female companions. Their excellent relationship with girls may foreshadow the later development of an adult homosexual pattern; it is, so to speak, too good. Forty-one per cent of the men reported having had many female companions, and 66 per cent reported having had many male companions (the lowest percentage recorded). Among the control and prison individuals, however, the difference in percentages is much greater.
As one would expect, the homosexual offenders vs. adults have a high percentage (68 per cent) who had prepubertal homosexual play; 57 per cent had heterosexual play; altogether some 81 per cent had some sort of prepubertal sex play. In brief, more future homosexual offenders vs. adults engaged in sex play than the members of most other groups; an above-average number had heterosexual play, and a very large number (second only to the homosexual offenders vs. minors) had homosexual play.
As with the other homosexual offenders, a relatively high percentage (nearly one quarter) confined their sex play to other boys. In terms of homosexual exclusivity, the homosexual offenders rank first, second, and third. Among those with heterosexual play only, the homosexual offenders vs. adults rank next to last with 14 per cent. Still, the largest group (43 per cent, third position in a rank-order) had both hetero-and homosexual play.
Their predominantly homosexual orientation is shown more clearly in measurements of the duration of sex play, their heterosexual play lasting chiefly for one year or less, while 59 per cent continued their homosexual play for three years or more.
Sexual techniques also mirror the same situation. The homosexual offenders vs. adults reported relatively few instances of heterosexual mouth-genital contact and coitus, but numerous instances of homosexual oral and anal techniques. For example, of those with heterosexual play only 4 per cent had mouth-genital contact with girls whereas 42 per cent of those with homosexual play experienced this technique with boys. The prepubertal homosexual anal coitus of these homosexual offenders (37 per cent, the second largest percentage having had this experience) is quite unusual in that nearly one third were solely recipient, receiving the penis in the anus. This is by far the largest proportion recorded. Conversely, very few (6 per cent) had inserted their penes in other males while never having been recipients.
Like other homosexual offenders, the homosexual offender vs. adults was apt to have had sexual experience with adult males before puberty. A third had been approached by men and 27 per cent had had sexual physical contact with men. In this latter respect, the future homosexual offenders rank first, second, and third. On the other hand, both relatively and numerically, few homosexual offenders vs. adults (4 per cent) had any sexual experience with adult females. While it is true that an existing pattern of homosexuality predisposes a preadolescent boy toward contact with adult males, it is also true that such contact serves to reinforce the homosexual pattern.
The homosexual offenders vs. adults had the least healthy childhood of any group. Only 58 per cent reported good health (no group reported less) and 17 per cent reported poor health (no group reported more). It is interesting that their relatively poor health did not, insofar as we can determine, interfere with childhood socialization and sex play.
The homosexual offenders vs. adults are distinctive in yet another way. They reached puberty at an earlier age than any other group of sex offenders—no less than 47 per cent before they were thirteen, the highest percentage of any group and one well above the equivalent figures for the control group (24 per cent) and the prison group (31 per cent). This trend toward early puberty is even more striking if one notes the percentages who reached puberty by age eleven. Fifteen per cent of the homosexual offenders vs. adults did so; again this is the highest percentage and almost double that of the control and prison groups. Whereas early adolescence reduced the number of years of prepubertal life, it did not, as we have seen, hamper the prepubertal sexual activity of the homosexual offender vs. adults.
The early age at puberty for this group is accounted for partly by the fact that the homosexual offenders vs. adults include the largest proportion of individuals from the upper socioeconomic level, and males from this social stratum reach puberty earlier than those of the middle and lower socioeconomic levels.
About half had masturbated before puberty, a percentage exceeded only by the homosexual offenders vs. minors. Of those who did, 60 per cent began before age ten—an early beginning typical of homosexual offenders. Their masturbatory history, when coupled with the relatively large amount of prepubertal sex play, makes the homosexual offenders vs. adults, along with the other homosexual offenders, one of the sexually most active groups in childhood.
*200\161\2*
Tags: Erectile Dysfunction, Men’s Health
-
The fact that 62 per cent of the incest offenders vs. adults had extramarital coitus does not contradict the general picture we have seen of sexual restraint. Sixty-two per cent is a relatively moderate figure and, furthermore, the extramarital coitus was in some instances the incest offense.
The age-specific incidence of extramarital coitus with companions is low (second lowest) until age thirty, after which it becomes moderate. The extramarital coitus with prostitutes presents a more erratic picture. Between sixteen and twenty these offenders are at the bottom of the rank-order with none of their members having such prostitution activity; in age-period 21-25 they rank second with 22 per cent involved; in age-period 26-30 they rank first with nearly one third of their number having such coitus. Thereafter they drop to intermediate positions in the rank-orders with percentages declining to 8 per cent in age-period 41-45.
The data available suggest that the frequency of extramarital coitus of any sort was always low.
The proportion of total outlet comprised by extramarital coitus with companions is very small (3 per cent or less) until after age thirty-five, but in age-periods 36-40 and 41-45 the proportions are large, 10 and 17 per cent respectively. It is in this span of years from thirty-five to forty-five that about half of these offenders committed their offenses, and their incestuous activity undoubtedly contributed substantially to the percentages just mentioned. In addition, this rise in extramarital coitus may indicate marital discord, presaging, rather than being, the incest itself. The proportion of total outlet derived from extramarital coitus with prostitutes is quite small, scarcely exceeding half of 1 per cent at the most.
A problem peculiar to these incest offenders arises here. Although 62 per cent of them reported extramarital coitus, we find that nine out of ten of the offenses (offenses and offenders are nearly synonymous in this group) involved incestuous coitus. The question, then, is why is the percentage for extramarital coitus not much higher? The answer seems twofold. First, nearly one third of the offenders were separated, divorced, or widowed at the time of the offense, and hence the incest is postmarital rather than extramarital. Second, one quarter of the men denied their offense when interviewed, which means that some of them thereby escaped being classed as having had extramarital coitus.
There were too few separated, divorced, and widowed individuals to permit calculation of postmarital statistics.
*158\161\2*
Tags: Erectile Dysfunction, Men’s Health
-
Examination of the aggressors vs. adults leads us to feel that the majority can be classified into seven varieties, and that the classification is scientifically and clinically useful.
The commonest variety, accounting for between one quarter and one third of our sample, we have labeled the assaultive variety. These are men whose behavior includes unnecessary violence; it seems that sexual activity alone is insufficient and that in order for it to be maximally gratifying it must be accompanied by physical violence or by serious threat. In brief, there is a strong sadistic element in these men and they often feel pronounced hostility to women (and possibly to men also) at a conscious or unconscious level. They generally do not know their victims; they usually commit the offense alone, without accomplices; preliminary attempts at seduction are either absent or extremely brief and crude; the use of weapons is common; the man usually has a past history of violence; he seemingly selects his victim with less than normal regard for her age, appearance, and deportment. Lastly, there is a tendency for the offense to be accompanied by bizarre behavior including unnecessary and trivial theft. Aside from the drunken variety of aggressor, the assaultive type has more cases involving erectile impotence than do the others. In some instances the violence seems to substitute for coitus or at least render the need for it less. In other cases there appears to have been a conflict between sexual desire and hostility resulting in some measure of erectile (less often ejaculatory) impotence. An example of the type of assaultive aggressor whom the newspapers label “sex maniac” is a man aged forty-two when interviewed. The repetitive and compulsive element is particularly strong in this case. Beginning at age seventeen he had an uninterrupted list of arrests for indecent exposure, molestation, and indecent assault, culminating in a flurry of forced rapes after his marriage broke up when he was about thirty. He accosted his victims chiefly on the street, but sometimes sought them out in their rooms. He intimidated them by displaying a long knife. He never injured any of the women and his statement that he would not fulfill his verbal threats is probably correct, since when one woman refused to comply with his order to undress he simply departed. The impotence which is not unusual in assaultive aggressors was in this man manifested in some erectile difficulty. The prison psychologist found the man to have an “acceptance of and obsession with sex fantasies.”
A second illustrative case reveals a more sadistic bent. This man had since puberty been sexually excited by stories of rape and he had developed a particularly gratifying fantasy of breaking into a house at night and tearing the clothes from a girl who, in the process, became sexually aroused and finally cooperative. His overt assaultive behavior developed a few years after puberty. While window-peeping he saw a woman undress and go to bed; aroused by the sight he broke into her house and struck her on the head with the handle of a knife, hoping to make her unconscious and vulnerable for coitus. However, the woman screamed when struck and the subject, then aged fifteen, ran away. There appear to have been no other overt aggressions until he was twenty-two, the year before his marriage, when he broke into the house of a neighboring woman whom he believed to be promiscuous and whose husband was away. He found her asleep in bed, nude. Placing his hand over her mouth he warned her to be quiet and then began to caress her. According to his statement, which parallels his fantasy suspiciously well, she became sexually aroused and the consequent coitus was by mutual desire. She subsequently recognized him and asked him to return on the following night. However, she informed the police who made the arrest the next morning. Then the woman, who was a friend of the young man’s mother, suffered another change of heart and refused to press charges and he was released with the suggestion that he seek psychiatric help.
He did not follow this advice, but married. The marriage did not end either his fantasy or his desire to assault women: during the two years of his marriage he twice seized females at night, once on a deserted street and once in the woman’s backyard, but in both instances his victim’s screams caused him to abandon his efforts. Also while married he entered two houses at night, but departed when he found the beds occupied by males as well as females. Soon after his marriage broke up he made three attempts at rape. The first consisted of grabbing a girl at night on a residential street; her screams caused people to turn on porch lights and he fled. The second was an attempt to pull a woman into his car. She struggled and finally offered him money to let her go, an offer he declined until her cries and struggles attracted some passers-by; at this point he seized the money and fled. This episode did not deter him. He drove until he saw a lone female in a car, followed her to an apartment house, and watched to find out which was her apartment. After waiting an hour, he took the screen off her window and entered, noticing a purse which he immediately appropriated—a typical instance of the petty theft which one finds among assaultive aggressors. This was the second time within a few hours that he had obtained money from an intended victim. Finding the woman asleep in bed (as in the earlier instance), he put his hand over her mouth, told her to be quiet, and began to caress her. She told him she was menstruating and showed him the tampon; this caused him to lose his erection (an instance of the impotence not uncommon in this variety of aggressor) and he was unable to continue. After talking a while he left under the impression that the woman would welcome his return. He did subsequently return some nights later and was welcomed by the waiting police. This wishful self-delusion that their victims have become desirous of seeing them again is frequent among aggressors vs. adults, and they seem to find it difficult to believe that the women bear them any ill will.
In these two cases, there was really rather little physical violence despite the obvious or implied threats. The assaultive aggressor who seemingly requires violence for his gratification is exemplified by a semiskilled laborer with two marriages and seven prison sentences behind him when he was interviewed in his late forties. While no conscious sadism appeared in his dreams, fantasies, or reactions to stories of brutality, all or nearly all his four rapes or attempted rapes were marked by unnecessary violence. The first rape, committed when he was in his early twenties, was a case of two young men picking up two girls, one of whom fled when the men refused to take them home. While it seems clear that the other girl could have been easily subdued and restrained by the two sturdy males, the subject felt it necessary to beat her and, after placing her on the ground, to kick her in the mouth before having coitus. Data are incomplete regarding his second rape when he was in his late twenties, but he entered the bedroom of a sleeping woman and attempted to have coitus with her. His third rape was committed, when he was in his thirties, upon his mother-in-law who was nearly twenty years his senior. He raped her twice and in the process beat her so severely that she was hospitalized for a month. He evaded prosecution by fleeing the state. His fourth rape, when he was in his late thirties, consisted of forcing a girl into his motel cabin and threatening her with a knife. When she tried to escape he struck her with a bottle and beat her up. Before coitus was accomplished, she did manage to run, nearly nude, from the cabin to seek help. The man solaced himself by taking her purse before he fled, but made the error of returning to salvage a bottle of whiskey which he had forgotten to take with him. After serving some years for this offense he was paroled but extradited to another state to stand trial for having raped his former mother-in-law.
*116\161\2*
Tags: Erectile Dysfunction, Men’s Health
-
The early lives of the offenders vs. adults scarcely suggest their later difficulties—they had a good parental adjustment, excellent health, and little preadolescent sex play. Most aspects of their subsequent years suggest an almost wholesomely simple and direct approach to life. They were very strongly heterosexual and were interested (and singularly successful) in gratifying their sexual desires with adult females. The other outlets—masturbation, dreams, homosexuality, and animal contact—were unimportant. In keeping with this emphasis on heterosexuality, a high proportion married and married young. Alcohol and drugs did not complicate their lives to any significant degree, nor were they plagued by mental or emotional deficiencies or maladjustments.
The key to the offenders vs. adults is this: as a group they are simple, unimaginative, impulsive opportunists. Their unimaginativeness is also demonstrated by their noteworthy lack of response to seeing or thinking of females. While not antisocial, they seek gratification of their desires (sexual and otherwise) via the easiest and most immediate route with a minimum of reflection. As a result they live rather disorderly lives, continually getting into trouble over property and women, but rarely getting into serious crime. They will casually “shack up” with any willing female or make a pass at anything in skirts, but they would not consider forcible rape or pedophilia. Similarly they are prone to minor crimes such as petty theft, stealing cars, and general disorderly conduct, but they are almost never professional criminals.
One is left with the over-all impression of an uneducated, opportunistic, and basically goodhearted soul who takes his pleasure where he finds it and lets the future take care of itself. This is the sort of man who is doomed to land in jail on some minor charge sooner or later, and the sexual element is almost fortuitous. Indeed, were it not for their carelessness regarding the age of their sexual partners, or their unfortunate inability to proceed with caution, the majority of offenders vs. adults would never have been convicted of sex offenses at all.
*74\161\2*
Tags: Erectile Dysfunction, Men’s Health
Recent Comments