SEX OFFENDERS VS. CHILDREN: ANIMAL CONTACTS

Mar
27
2009

In defining the term “animal contact” we wished to discount the experimental masturbation of animals by human beings which is ordinarily a juvenile activity arousing little or no erotic response in the human. In brief, the term here is limited to deliberate specifically sexual contact with an animal, engaged in with the intention of gaining sexual gratification. Therefore we regarded as “animal contact” any oral, anal, or vaginal penetration occurring between a human and some other vertebrate.

Some 16 per cent of the offenders vs. children had had animal contact; this was, as usual, almost wholly in their early postpubertal life. Sixteen per cent is, in comparison with other groups, an intermediate proportion; consequently, it is rather surprising to find that in terms of both mean and median frequency (among those having animal contacts) the offenders vs. children usually rank second. Since the activity chiefly occurred early in postpubertal life, frequencies can be calculated only for the first two age-periods; puberty-15 and 16-20. The average (median) offender vs. children had between 4 and 5 animal contacts a year up to age fifteen and between 8 and 9 from age sixteen to twenty. The mean frequency was about once in two weeks in both age-periods, which is second only to that of the control group.

The age-specific incidence of animal contacts among the unmarried offenders vs. children begins with 10 per cent between puberty and age fifteen, and following the rule that animal contacts become less frequent with age, falls to 6 per cent in age-period 16-20 and to 4 per cent throughout the next two age-periods. Relative to other groups, these offenders occupy intermediate positions in the rank-orders until the last age-period, 26-30, when their 4 per cent figure earns them second rank.

In the proportion of the total outlet constituted by animal contact, the unmarried offenders rank third from puberty to fifteen and sixteen to twenty, the percentages being 2.0 and 1.2 respectively.

Note that the offenders vs. children were in second rank (though with only 8 per cent) of those who had fantasies of animal contact during masturbation. This predilection was not seen in the content of their sex dreams, however.

As a group the offenders vs. children did not have an especially rural background, so this cannot be used as an explanation for the unexpectedly high frequency of animal contact.

*33\161\2*