“The most remarkable feature of the results,” the British researchers wrote, “. . . is a demonstration that dramatic improvements, even in such quantifiable variables as urinary flow rate, can result from placebo treatment.” However, they concluded, “it is clear that the results obtained offer no support to the suggestion that Permixon is of benefit in prostatic hypertrophy.”

In another study (done by scientists at Merck, which makes finasteride) finasteride was compared to a host of over-the-counter plant extracts that included Permixon, Bazoton, Talso, Strogen Forte, Prostagutt, Tadenan, Re-migeron, and Harzol. None of the over-the-counter drugs was found to have any significant inhibition of the 5-alpha-reductase enzyme or anti-androgen effect that could cause the prostate to shrink.

*289\201\8*

*250\201\8*

In most men who have undergone a TUR procedure for BPH, this valve is damaged; and therefore, because there’s no barrier to keep sperm from going back into the bladder, it isn’t forced out the urethra (this is called “dry,” or retrograde ejaculation).

After radical prostatectomy, there is usually no emission of fluid because the prostate and seminal vesicles, which produce the vast majority of this fluid, are gone and the vas deferens has been shut off. (A few men, however, do continue to produce a small amount of ejaculate. This fluid comes from the nearby Cowper’s glands; like the prostate and seminal vesicles, these are known as “sex accessory” tissues.)

After radiation therapy, many men also have a loss of ejaculate fluid because the glands responsible for making this fluid are “dried up.” In any event—no matter what causes “dry” ejaculation—the lack of fluid should not interfere with orgasm. The reason is that orgasm doesn’t really have much to do with the prostate. Think about it—women don’t have prostates, yet they do have orgasms. Why? Because . . .

*211\201\8*

Who should not undergo this procedure? First of all, if you’re not prepared to accept the physical and psychological ramifications of castration, it’s not for you. Choose another form of treatment. Also, this procedure may not be best for men who are on anticoagulant medications that might cause excessive bleeding.

*174\201\8*

*136\201\8*

A number of the pedophiles attempted to explain their attraction to young boys, and their explanations make it clear that the major factor is their inability to be at ease with adults. Some men made explicit statements to this effect, e.g., “I’m more comfortable with boys,” while others expressed themselves less directly, saying that boys are less demanding and critical. A few of the men who were insecure with their peers phrased their explanations in terms of dominance, pointing out that they could feel superior when with boys and that boys were easier to influence than adults.

The second commonest explanation, given by perhaps one quarter to one fifth of the men, centered on the emotional and sexual responsiveness of the young. Boys were valued for their reported ability to express emotion and affection unreservedly, spontaneously, and often intensely. The inhibitions and cold calculations that often mar adult relationships are, they felt, less common among the young.

Finally, about one eighth of the explanations concerned physical attributes. Some of these were expressed positively—for example, that boys have smooth soft bodies—but more were negative, listing the unpleasant attributes of adults that boys lacked.

The great majority of the pedophile variety of offenders had had considerable previous homosexual experience; only three or four appeared to have had little.

While the pedophile offenders vary considerably, the following case could be duplicated in essence many times. This man, twenty-eight years old, had had a considerable amount of prepubertal sex play, chiefly homosexual. Perhaps in consequence his postpubertal masturbatory fantasy and his sex dreams centered chiefly on boys. His overt homosexual activity extended a year or so beyond puberty and then stopped, but he did have homosexual relations with adults a few times during his military service overseas. On his return at age twenty he had a moderate amount of homosexual activity with one male aged sixteen, and some heterosexual coitus as well. The latter was chiefly with a fourteen-year-old girl (note the pedophilic trend) whom he impregnated and married. For four years thereafter he had no homosexual contacts, but his married sexual relations deteriorated and the coital frequency dropped to about once a month. He had strong moral objections to extramarital coitus and reverted, instead, to homosexuality, seeking strange young males to whom he offered money. He ultimately had four homosexual contacts, one with a boy of eleven, which resulted in his conviction.

Some of the pedophile variety of offenders were sexual polymorphs —persons not especially concerned about the species, gender, or age of their sexual partners. One example was a man in his late thirties, of average intelligence but small education. Between age five and puberty he had had sexual contact with adult females, but had never achieved coitus because he was not aroused enough to maintain an adequate erection. He also had a small amount of contact with adult males. He had had numerous brief marriages—the first one at age eighteen—with females from two years his junior to 21 years his senior. All through his life he also had sporadic homosexual experiences. While most of his heterosexual and homosexual contacts were with adults, he had also engaged in sexual practices with seven boys aged eight to fourteen and four girls aged eight to eleven, and was convicted twice for his behavior. The age of his ideal sexual partner, female or male, would be fifteen years.

A great percentage point gap separates the pedophile variety from the next commonest varieties, the mental defectives and the drunks each constituting about 10 per cent of the homosexual offenders vs. children. The mental defectives, it will be recalled, are also the second commonest variety of heterosexual offenders vs. children.

The mentally defective homosexual offenders vs. children reported extremely little homosexual experience; only one man had more than an incidental amount, and three denied any homosexual activity including the offense. Three young males aged sixteen to twenty-four, with IQs ranging from 46 to 64, had had extremely little contact with either sex, but the remaining mentally defective offenders had had at least a modicum of sociosexual life. The offenses of the “sexless” three were childlike not only in choice of object but in the behavior involved. The more experienced offenders also showed little evidence of being physically dangerous; only one, a man of thirty-five with an IQ in the 50s used violence, slapping an older boy who refused him. On the other hand, there were some attempts at anal coitus which can be physically damaging to children.

As common as the mentally defective variety are the drunks. All but one of these nine men were confirmed alcoholics, and most had long records of arrests for drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and vagrancy. Unlike the pedophiles they were very apt to commit nonsexual crimes, over half having felony arrests, chiefly for larceny of one sort or another. They also are a more violent group. They seem, however, considerably less homosexual than the pedophiles: three denied any homosexual experience including the offense, three had little homosexuality in their histories, two had a substantial amount, and data are incomplete for one individual.

The next commonest variety, consisting of five individuals, was the situational variety. Four of the five were predominantly homosexual males who under unusual circumstances had contact with boys whom they would ordinarily have avoided as too young. The fifth case—that of a male without previous homosexual activity or inclination-stemmed from marital stress, sexual deprivation, and emotional upset.

The remaining four classifiable cases were judged to be three amoral delinquents and one psychotic.

*180\161\2*

Like the other incest offenders, very few (3 per cent) of the offenders vs. minors ever masturbated more than a dozen times in any one week of their lives. This figure is below that of the control group (6 per cent) and far below that of the majority of the sex-offender groups. In a rank-order of the percentages whose maximum frequency was once to twice a week, the three incest-offender groups rank second, third (the offenders vs. minors), and fourth.

Like the other incest offenders, the incest offenders vs. minors display low frequencies of premarital masturbation; they had the second lowest median frequency from puberty up to age twenty-five (about once in three weeks to 3 times a month) which is as far as our data on premarital masturbation can be analyzed. Their mean frequency is always third or fourth lowest. The married incest offenders vs. minors also, in general, rank low; in fact, from age twenty-six on the average married individual exhibits the lowest frequencies (4 to 5 a year) of any of our groups. The average (mean) frequencies are not so dramatic, but are still on the low side.

The proportion of total outlet (total orgasms) derived from masturbation was ordinarily moderate for both the married and never married. However, in their early teens these incest offenders ranked third with 80 per cent of their outlet from masturbation. The incest offenders vs. adult daughters, it should be noted, ranked second.

The masturbatory fantasy of the incest offender vs. minors differs from that of other sex offenders in two respects. First, fewer of them fantasied than any other type of offender: some 18 per cent reported that they never had done so. Second, like the other incest offenders, very few had homosexual fantasies. The general lack of fantasy is in accord with the minimal conscious psychological response to visual sexual stimuli reported by these men.

Of all the types of sex offenders, the incest offenders vs. minors were least concerned over the possible ill-effects of masturbation. In only 25 per cent of the years during which masturbation occurred was there concomitant worry; this figure is less than half of that of the incest offenders vs. adults, who worried more than any group. Their lack of concern is in keeping with their tendency to minimize masturbation; it may be recalled that few of them masturbated before puberty and that thereafter the number who masturbated in any given age-period was relatively small.

A relatively large proportion (one third) of these offenders learned of masturbation from talking or reading, but only average numbers obtained this knowledge from other sources—observation, being masturbated, and self-discovery.

*138\161\2*

The median aggressor vs. minors experienced his first homosexual contact when he was just short of fifteen. It is worth noting here that while the aggressors vs. children had their first heterosexual contact well before their first homosexual contact, the discrepancy for the aggressors vs. minors was a matter of only a few months. In all but four of the comparative groups the first hetero- and homosexual experiences were separated by less than 12 months.

The frequency of homosexual contact outside prison per year—2.9 —is in no way unusual. It may be significant that all three of the aggressor groups occur in a cluster in the rank-order of median frequency, and would be contiguous were it not for the control group, which lies between the aggressors vs. adults and minors. Because of smallness of our sample, too few individuals were having homosexual activity within any five-year age-period to permit us to make meaningful frequency calculations.

Homosexual activity accounted for only a small proportion of the total outlet of the unmarried aggressors, varying from 1 to 3 per cent in the two early age-periods for which we have calculations.

With regard to the number of males with whom they had homosexual contact outside prison, the aggressors vs. minors rank fifth, below the three homosexual groups and the prison group, the average (median) aggressor vs. minors had six partners. This accords with their tendency, noted earlier, to be somewhat more active homosexually than most groups. While relatively few had but one partner and a few had more than a score, more of them (38 per cent) had between six and 20 partners than did the members of any other group.

In keeping with these findings, they were the most tolerant of any group (save the homosexual offenders themselves) about male homosexuality. Thirty-two per cent, the third smallest percentage, disapproved and 20 per cent approved. More of them (48 per cent) were neutral on the subject than were the members of any other group. This liberality, one will recall, was also evident in our examination of the various restraints upon premarital coitus, which showed the aggressors vs. minors to have the least concern about the moral and social aspects.

*96\161\2*

With regard to accumulative incidence, the number of individuals with homosexual experience by a given age, the offenders vs. minors always occupy low-intermediate positions in the rank-orders. The median offender had his first postpubertal homosexual contact at age 15.6 years, a customary age for this experience.

The proportions of single offenders vs. minors involved in homosexuality within a given five-year age-period are always moderate or even somewhat small in comparison to other groups, ranging from about one seventh to one quarter. Only a very small number of married offenders vs. minors engaged in homosexual activity; the proportions involved in any age-period range from 0 to 8 per cent. In fact, in only three age-periods (21-25, 26-30, 36-40) have we any men reporting homosexual behavior. Our data concerning postmarital life indicate that the age-specific incidence of homosexual activity among these separated, divorced, or widowed offenders is similarly very low.

The frequency of homosexual experience, calculated as the number of physical contacts per year outside of prison, is moderate, and less than the frequency reported by the control group (3.4) despite the fact that the offenders vs. minors exceed the controls in most other measures of homosexual activity. Homosexual activity accounted for only a moderate proportion of the total sexual outlet of the unmarried, being always less than that of the control group.

The median frequency of homosexual activity among unmarried males with homosexual experience was somewhat high in the various age-periods from puberty to age twenty-five; thereafter we have too few never-married males to permit frequency calculations. These men ranked fourth to fifth in all three age-periods. The median number of partners—four—with whom these men had contact outside of prison is a moderate number in comparison to other groups. Nearly one third confined themselves to one partner; somewhat fewer had two to five; about one fifth had six to 20; and only 15 per cent had more than 20 partners. None of these proportions are unusually large or small. A study of the youngest partner with whom the offender had homosexual contact after he was eighteen reveals that only one man reported a boy under twelve years old; none had as their youngest partners boys aged twelve to fifteen, and three listed males aged sixteen to seventeen— three constituting the relatively large figure of 17 per cent.

Despite their moderate amount of homosexual behavior, the heterosexual offenders vs. minors were relatively harsh in their disapproval of male homosexuality, ranking fourth in this respect. Two thirds disapproved as opposed to only 7 per cent who approved—only one group (the heterosexual offenders vs. adults, significantly enough) contained fewer men who approved.

*54\161\2*

The general position of a group rather than its exact position is the important thing. It matters little whether, by virtue of some fraction, a group ranks second or third; what does matter is that it ranks high.

When two or three groups of a tripartite larger group (e.g., offenders vs. children, vs. minors, and vs. adults) are contiguous in a rank-order, this contiguity is most unlikely to be chance. The position of one group might be said to substantiate the position of the other.

In addition to noting the positions of specific groups in a rank-order, valuable knowledge may be obtained by looking for general trends: do the offenders whose sexual objects were children tend to concentrate in the rank-order? Do some groups reveal a correlation between rank-order position and increasing age? These and similar questions have been routinely raised and dealt with in our analyses.

*11\161\2*