Contents*

• Demographics and a Brief Historical Perspective 1128

1. Basic Sexological Premises 1133
2. Religious, Ethnic, and Gender Factors Affecting Sexuality 1139
3. Knowledge and Education about Sexuality 1169
4. Autoerotic Behaviors and Patterns 1178
5. Interpersonal Heterosexual Behaviors 1180
6. Homoerotic, Homosexual, and Bisexual Behaviors 1209
7. Gender Diversity and Transgender Issues 1219
8. Significant Unconventional Sexual Behaviors 1228
9. Contraception, Abortion, and Population Planning 1250
10. Sexually Transmitted Diseases and HIV/AIDS 1262
11. Sexual Dysfunctions, Counseling, and Therapies 1272
12. Sex Research and Advanced Professional Education 1281
13. Sexuality and American Popular Culture 1286
14. Concluding Remarks 1304
15. Epilogue: A Transcultural Inventory of Courtship and Mating, by John Money 1307
16. References and Suggested Readings 1310

*A Note for Researchers:  The numbers included in the section titles in the Contents above refer to the page numbers in the print edition of the CCIES. For the convenience of researchers, Adobe Acrobat (PDF) files of this chapter are available for download above (click the PDF icons), which reflects the actual pagination of the book. This will allow scholarly writers to cite actual page numbers in the printed book for quoted material, as well as its availability on the Web and the URL if desired. See also How to Use This Encyclopedia.

Chapter URL:  http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/us.php    Retrieved: 

[Note from the CCIES Website Editor:  Please send any additions, corrections, or updated information to:  Raymond J. Noonan, Ph.D.]

Demographics and a Brief Historical Perspective

ROBERT T. FRANCOEUR

A. Demographics

The United States is located in the southern part of the North American continent. Its mainland is south of Canada and north of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and other Caribbean island nations. The North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans border the mainland on the east and west. The United States is the third-largest country by size, after Russia and Canada, and by population, after China and India. In comparing landmass, the U.S. is about half the size of Russia, three-tenths the size of Africa, about half the size of South America, slightly larger than China, and about two and a half times the size of Western Europe. The state of Alaska lies off Canada’s northwestern border, and the islands of Hawaii are 2,090 miles (3,360 km) southwest of San Francisco in the North Pacific.

The mainland climate is mostly temperate, but it is tropical in Florida and Hawaii, arctic in Alaska, semiarid in the Great Plains west of the Mississippi River, and arid in the Great Basin of the southwest.

In July 2002, the United States had an estimated population of 280.5 million. (All data are from The World Factbook 2002 (CIA 2002) unless otherwise stated.)

B. A Brief Historical Perspective

Britain’s American colonies broke with the mother country in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation of the United States of America following the Treaty of Paris in 1783. During the 19th and 20th centuries, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions: Cuba, the Panama Canal Zone, the Philippines, and Hawaii and Alaska. The two most traumatic experiences in the nation’s history were the Civil War (1861-1865) and the Great Depression of the 1930s. Buoyed by victories in World Wars I and II and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the U.S. remains the world’s most powerful nation. The economy has been marked by steady growth, low unemployment and inflation, and rapid advances in technology.

C. Demographic Challenges and a Sketch of
Diversity, Change, and Social Conflict

DAVID L. WEIS

Demographic Challenges

In one sense, great diversity is virtually guaranteed by the sheer size of the United States. The U.S.A. is a union of 50 participating states. It is one of the larger nations in the world, with the 48 contiguous states spanning more than 3,000 miles (4,800 km) across the North American continent, from its eastern shores on the Atlantic Ocean to its western shores on the Pacific Ocean, and more than 2,000 miles (3,200 km) from its northern border with Canada to its southern border with Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, the state of Alaska, itself a large landmass covering thousands of square miles in the northwest corner of North America, and the state of Hawaii, a collection of islands in the mid-Pacific Ocean, are part of the union.

The United States has a population of more than 280 million racially and ethnically heterogeneous people (Wilkinson 1987; CIA 2002). A majority, about 190 million are white descendants of immigrants from the European continent, with sizable groups from Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Germany, and Poland. The last decade of the 20th century marked a major shift in the ethnic balance of the U.S. Between 1990 and 2002, white Americans whose ancestors came from Europe dropped from 80.1% to 75.1%. African-Americans, most of whose ancestors were brought to North America as slaves before the 20th century, dropped from second to third place, from 12.1% to 12.3%. Hispanics moved from third place at 9.0% in 1990 to second place in 2002 at 12.5% (see Section 2B, Religious, Ethnic, and Gender Factors Affecting Sexuality, Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Perspectives, U.S. Latinos and Sexual Health). Their ancestors emigrated from such places as Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, as well as other Central and South American nations. Hispanics represent the fastest-growing minority group in the U.S. There are also more than two million Native Americans—Eskimos, Aleuts, and those mistakenly at one time called Indians—whose ancestors have occupied North America for thousands of years, and whose residence within the boundaries of what is now the U.S.A. predates all of the other groups mentioned.

Another group experiencing rapid growth in recent decades is Asian-Americans; there are now more than three million residents of Asian heritage. Substantial populations of Japanese and Chinese immigrants have been in the U.S.A. since the 19th century. More recently, there has been an increase from such nations as India, Vietnam, Korea, the Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Pakistan. Finally, there are smaller groups of immigrants from virtually every nation, with growing numbers of Muslims in recent decades. The size of the various nonwhite minority groups has been increasing in the last 30 years, both in terms of real numbers and as a percentage of the total U.S. population (Wilkinson 1987; World Almanac 1993).

It is fair to conclude that the U.S.A. is generally a nation of former immigrants. Moreover, one continuing feature of American history has been the successive immigration of different groups at different points in time (Wells 1985).

Approximately two thirds of the population lives within 100 miles (160 km) of one of the coastal shorelines. Most of the largest metropolitan areas lie within these coastal areas, and it is worth noting that most sexologists in the U.S.A. also reside in these same areas.

The United States is somewhat unique among the world’s economies in that it is simultaneously one of the largest agricultural producers, as well as one of the largest industrialized nations, exporting manufactured goods and technology to the rest of the world. Historically, the northeast and upper midwest have been the principal industrial centers, and the southeast and the central Great Plains have been the agricultural centers.

One of the economically richest nations in the world, America, nevertheless, has an estimated 500,000 to 600,000 individuals and 125,000 to 150,000 families homeless on any night. Overall, 15% of Americans—30% of the poor—are without health insurance. Infant-mortality rates and life-expectancy rates vary widely, depending on socioeconomic status and residence in urban, suburban, or rural settings. Fifty-two million American married couples are paralleled by 2.8 million unmarried households and close to 8 million single-parent families.

In summarizing aspects of sexuality in America, it is helpful to keep in mind that the United States of the 21st century will look profoundly different from the nation described in this chapter. Four major trends for the future have been detailed in Population Profile of the United States (1995), published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

There is also great diversity in religious affiliation in the United States (Marciano 1987; see Section 2A). To a considerable degree, the choice of religious denomination is directly related to the ethnic patterns previously described. The overwhelming majority of Americans represent the Judeo-Christian heritage, but that statement is potentially misleading. Within the Judeo-Christian heritage, there are substantial populations of Roman Catholics, mainstream Protestants (Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, and others), and a growing number of fundamentalist Christians. There is no great uniformity in religious practice or sexual mores shared by these various groups. In addition, there is a relatively small percentage of Americans who are Jewish and range from ultra-orthodox to conservative, reformed, and liberal. In recent decades, as immigration from Asia has increased, there has been a corresponding growth in the Muslim and Hindu faiths.

Several trends related to the practice of religion in the U.S.A. have become a source of recent social concern. These trends include: the declining attendance at the traditional Protestant and Catholic churches in what has been labeled the growing “secularization” of American culture; the “religious revivalism” reflected by the growth of fundamentalist churches; the growth of religious cults (e.g., Hare Krishna and the Unification Church); the growing power of the conservative Christian Coalition; and the emergence of the “Electronic Church” (religious broadcasting) (Marciano 1987). Throughout the history of this nation, diversity of religious beliefs and the separation of church and state have been central elements in conflicts over sexual morality.

The subcultures and peoples of the United States are as varied, diverse, and complex as any other large nation. The unique feature of sexuality in the United States is that we have far more information and data on American sexual attitudes, values, and behaviors than is available for any other country.

A Sketch of Recent Diversity, Change, and Social Conflict

A few examples will illustrate some of the issues that have been affected by this complex of influences.

[Update 1998: The dominant news story in the U.S. through much of 1998 concerned the alleged extramarital sexual practices of President Bill Clinton. Stories about Clinton’s sexual experiences with a number of women routinely surfaced throughout his presidential term. Certainly, no American president has ever been subjected to as much speculation about extramarital sex while still in office. As early as his first presidential campaign in 1992, Gennifer Flowers alleged that she had had a long-term affair with Clinton while he had been governor of Arkansas. Clinton initially denied her specific allegations. He did admit in a televised interview that he had had extramarital experiences, claiming that he and his wife had resolved their marital problems. Later, after his election, he admitted to an affair with Flowers. In 1994, Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, revealed at a press conference sponsored by a fundamentalist Christian group that she believed Clinton had sexually harassed her in 1991 while he was governor. Later that year, Jones filed a civil suit charging the President with sexual harassment. Jones claimed that Clinton invited her to his hotel room (using a state trooper as an intermediary), exposed himself, and asked her to perform fellatio (Isikoff & Thomas 1997; Taylor 1997). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1997 that the suit could proceed while Clinton was still in office (Isikoff & Thomas 1997).

[Enter Kenneth Starr. Starr, a Republican judge, had been appointed as a special prosecutor early in the Clinton presidency to investigate possible improprieties in an Arkansas business deal involving the Clintons that had come to be known as the Whitewater investigation. By November 1996, having spent three years and roughly $30 million and failing to generate credible evidence of wrongdoing by the Clintons, Starr’s investigators began questioning women who may have had sexual encounters with Clinton (Isikoff & Fineman 1997). With the Supreme Court ruling that the Jones lawsuit could proceed, Jones’s lawyers also began a search for women who could testify that they had been approached by the President while working for him. Members of the American press followed leads along the same lines. By early 1997, these separate lines of inquiry led all three groups to Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, and Kathleen Willey.

[Kathleen Willey, a former volunteer in the White House social office, was initially called to testify in the Jones case. She made charges that Clinton had kissed and fondled her in the White House Oval Office in 1993 when she met with him there seeking a full-time job. Upon leaving Clinton’s office, Willey saw Linda Tripp in the hallway. According to Tripp’s affidavit, Willey had left that meeting looking disheveled and told her that the President had made sexual overtures toward her. Clinton’s attorney, Robert Bennett, called the charges a lie and attacked Tripp (Fineman & Breslau 1998; Isikoff & Thomas 1998). Tripp claimed that Willey had been pleased and “joyful” about the experience. Willey later claimed that she was distraught and upset by the incident. However, a friend of Willey’s claimed that Willey had instructed her to lie about being distraught over the incident. According to the friend, Willey had not been upset (Isikoff 1997). The Willey allegations did not become public until a 60 Minutes television interview in March 1998. Clinton denied the charges.

[In January 1998, President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky each signed affidavits in the Paula Jones case that they had never had sexual relations with each other. However, throughout 1997, Lewinsky had told a friend of hers on numerous occasions that she had been having an affair with the President. The friend was Linda Tripp. Believing that she would be called to testify about what Lewinsky had told her and fearing that she would be attacked by Clinton’s defense team, Tripp began taping her phone calls with Lewinsky. A week after the Lewinsky affidavit denying any sexual involvement with Clinton, Tripp approached Kenneth Starr’s investigators with her story. They proceeded to wire her for subsequent conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Roughly a week later, the story hit the headlines that Clinton may have had an affair with Lewinsky, that he may have perjured himself in the Jones case by denying it, that there was taped evidence of Lewinsky telling a friend about the affair, and that Clinton and his associates may have obstructed justice by urging Lewinsky to lie under oath (Fineman & Breslau 1998; Isikoff & Thomas 1998). There seemed to be little else in the news besides this ongoing saga.

[As we went to press, it was not yet clear how these allegations would turn out. On April 1, 1998, the suit by Paula Jones was thrown out of court. The federal judge in the case ruled that Clinton had not committed a crime of either sexual assault or sexual harassment, even if Jones’s claims were factual. Two thirds of American adults had indicated months earlier that they did not believe the Jones incident constituted sexual harassment (Isikoff & Thomas 1997).

[In an ironic twist, President Clinton’s approval ratings increased to their highest levels ever in the months after the Lewinsky story became national news. There was considerable speculation in the press about what this meant. It seemed clear that the majority of the American public did not want to see Clinton removed from office for the charges that had surfaced thus far. Many interpreted the polls as indicating that most Americans believed that a person’s sex life—even the President’s—is a private matter and should not be subjected to public investigation, unless it was specifically criminal itself. The message from the American public seemed to be, “Stay out of our bedrooms.”

[Another ironic consequence of these collected stories was that, at least for the time being, discourse about sexuality had never been freer or more open. Americans in general and the American media routinely discussed the President’s sex life, extramarital sex, oral sex, and the like. As a culture, we seemed to be talking about sex more than ever. (End of update by D. L. Weis)]

[Update 2003: As we went to press in 1998 with Sexuality in America, the single volume of the U.S. chapter taken from volume 3 of The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality, it was not yet clear how the allegations about President Clinton having sex with Monica Lewinski and other women would fall out. At first, Clinton denied those charges, waggling his finger at television cameras as he claimed that he had never had sex with “that woman.” Of course, we know now that Clinton and Lewinsky did have oral sex together (apparently, she performed oral sex on him, but he did not return the favor). The U.S. House of Representatives voted—in an overwhelmingly partisan display—to impeach him, and the U.S. Senate ultimately voted not to convict Mr. Clinton. The entire episode left many Americans and people around the world wondering what this all meant. Our concern here is with what it tells us about American sexuality and our themes of change, conflict, and diversity.

[First, we should mention that at no point did a majority of American citizens favor ousting Mr. Clinton from office over this affair. Roughly two thirds of the American public continued to support his presidency. The Republican party pursued impeachment on the assumption that, when Americans finally learned what Mr. Clinton had done, they would want him removed from office. That never happened. Roughly one third did respond that way, but only one third. In fact, numerous polls indicated that a majority of Americans were more likely to condemn Congress for impeaching Clinton than to have believed that he should be removed from office (Schell 1999). Social disapproval was the punishment for those who were seen as trying to get Clinton. Popularity ratings for Congress, Linda Tripp, and Ken Starr sank below 10% (Leland 1998/1999). Most social observers believed that this represented a shift from what would have occurred in the past, say if the extramarital sexual adventures of Presidents Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Franklin Roosevelt had become widely known. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that this is what allowed him to finish his term in office.

[A second consequence of the Bill Clinton sex scandal would be that sexual discourse is now even more open in America. According to John Leland (1998/1999), this open discourse about sex, including the Clinton scandal, oral sex, Viagra, and so on, is the principal distinguishing characteristic of the present culture. To this, we can add that the episode has made social conservatives even more determined to reverse what they see as the moral decay of American society.

[Third, there is the issue of what we might call the Bill Clinton definition of sex, stemming from his frequently re-shown claim that he had not had sex with Monica Lewinsky. There are now several studies of what Americans think “sex” is. Sanders and Reinisch (1999) asked 599 midwestern college students in 1991 if they believed that various acts constituted “having sex.” Roughly 60% indicated that they believed engaging in oral sex did not constitute having sex. In addition, nearly 20% indicated that anal sex was also not having sex. By the way, the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association was fired shortly after publishing this study (Cowley & Springen 1999). Hawkins and a research group (2002) completed a study of 311 7th- to 12th-grade students in rural Arkansas (Clinton’s home state). The students were asked to indicate what the words “abstinent” and “sexual activity” mean. The responses demonstrate a general lack of consensus about what these terms mean. Many of these young people, but not all, believed sex is intercourse. Similarly, abstinence was widely seen as abstaining from intercourse. Remez (2000) reported that “many” adolescents engage in oral sex without having intercourse and that “many” do not regard this as sexual activity. This view is also common in the Baptist (which Clinton is) tradition. One Baptist minister described the behavior as disgusting, but insisted that it did not constitute having sex (Woodward 1998). Thus, many Americans do, in fact, appear to share the view that oral sex is not having sex. Clearly, there is great opportunity for sex education in America—even today.

[Finally, we would like to note that the 2000 presidential election in the U.S.A. also demonstrates our general themes of change, conflict, and diversity. The polls from 1998 through 2000 strongly suggest that Mr. Clinton would have been re-elected if he could have run. True, those same polls indicate that one third of Americans would have bitterly opposed him. The actual election results, with Gore and Bush drawing almost exactly 50% of the vote, demonstrates that the cultural war between competing factions (which we discuss throughout this American chapter) is about as great as it has ever been. This has played out as a regular theme of the George W. Bush administration.

[There were, of course, other examples of change, conflict, and diversity besides the Clinton affair, which we mentioned in Sexuality in America in 1998 and our original chapter in 1997. (End of update by D. L. Weis)]

[Update 2003: A few fairly obvious events in the news since 1998 are worth mentioning here to bring our central theme of change, conflict, and diversity up to the present.

Each of the above events in the late 1990s and early 21st century serves as an intriguing indicator of the state of sexuality in the United States, and each also reveals much about the interaction of politics and sexual issues as we approached the end of the 20th century. They demonstrate that, despite the immense social changes that have occurred during the 20th century, strong elements of religious fundamentalism and conservatism remain active within the culture. In fact, a full explanation of sexuality in the United States requires an understanding of the diverse sexual, social, and political ideologies characterizing the culture and the ongoing conflict between various groups over those ideologies.

In this respect, there is a rather schizophrenic character to sexuality in the United States. On the one hand, the U.S.A. is a country with a multibillion-dollar-a-year erotica/pornography business; a mass-media system where movies, television, books, magazines, and popular music are saturated with sexually titillating content alongside serious educational material; a high rate of premarital sex (nearly 90% by the 1990s); one of the most active and open gay-rights movements in the world; and a continuing public fascination with unusual sexual practices, extramarital sex, and gender-orientation issues, including, most recently, bisexuality.

On the other hand, federal, state, and local governments have invested heavily in recent years in prosecuting businesses for obscenity, allowed discriminatory practices based on sexual orientation, largely failed to implement comprehensive sexuality-education programs in the schools, and refused to support accessibility to contraceptives for adolescents. The consequences of these failures include one of the highest teenage-pregnancy and abortion rates in the world and increasing incidents of gay-bashing that reflect the prevalence of homonegative and homophobic attitudes in the U.S.A.

These examples illustrate one of the major themes in this chapter: the changing nature of sexuality in the U.S.A. throughout the 20th century. Although accounts of changing sexual norms and practices are frequently portrayed as occurring in a linear process, we would suggest that the more-typical pattern is one reflected by ongoing conflicts between competing groups over sexual ideology and practice. Each of the examples cited is an illustration of how those conflicts are currently manifested in the social and political arenas in the U.S.A.

A focus on the conflict between groups with contrasting ideologies and agendas over sexual issues will be a second theme of this chapter. This process of changing sexual attitudes, practices, and policies in an atmosphere that approaches “civil war” is a reflection of the tremendous diversity within American culture. In many respects, the widespread conflict over sexual issues is a direct outcome of the diversity of groups holding a vested interest in the outcomes of these conflicts, with some groups seeking to impose their beliefs on everyone.

The diversity of these groups will be the third major theme of the chapter. One example that will be apparent throughout this chapter is the question of gender. There is growing evidence that men and women in the U.S.A. tend to hold different sexual attitudes and ideologies, to exhibit different patterns of sexual behavior, and to pursue different sexual lifestyles—frequently at odds with each other (Oliver & Hyde 1993). In some ways, it may even be useful to view male and female perspectives as stemming from distinct gender cultures. In reviewing sexuality in the U.S.A., we will frequently attempt to assess how change occurs in a context of conflict between diverse social groups.

1. Basic Sexological Premises

DAVID L. WEIS

This overall theme of social change occurring in a process of conflict between diverse groups is woven throughout the history of the United States itself. There are at least two ways in which a study of history is important to an understanding of contemporary sexological premises and sexual patterns in the U.S.A. First, there is a specific history of sexual norms and customs changing over time. To the extent that sexual attitudes and practices are shared by the members of a social group or population in a particular time period, they can be viewed as social institutions. Unfortunately, it is exceedingly difficult to describe such sexual institutions in the U.S.A. prior to the 20th century, because there are few reliable empirical datasets available for that period. To a large extent, we have to rely on records of what people said about their own or others’ sexual attitudes and practices, and such statements may be suspect. Still, it seems reasonable to suggest that current sexual norms and customs have been shaped, at least in part, by earlier patterns.

In addition, there is a second way in which the general social history of the U.S.A. is important to understanding changing sexual institutions. Sexuality, like other social institutions, does not operate in a vacuum. It is related to and influenced by other social institutions, such as the economy, government, marriage and the family, religion, and education, as well as social patterns such as age distributions and gender ratios. As we will discuss in Section 2, Religious, Ethnic, and Gender Factors Affecting Sexuality, a good deal of research evidence indicates that such social institutions are often related to various sexual variables. Researchers have not consistently tested these associations, but the point is a crucial one theoretically for explaining the dynamics of sexual processes in a culture as large and diverse as the U.S.A.

A. From Colonial Times to the Industrial Revolution

In 1776, at the time of the War for American Independence, the U.S.A. became a nation of 13 states located along the shore of the Atlantic Ocean. Most of the inhabitants of the former British colonies were of English descent, and they tended to be Protestant. Although the first Africans had been brought to America as indentured servants as early as 1620, the practice of slavery quickly evolved. By the time of independence, an active slave trade involving hundreds of thousands of Africans and Caribbeans was well established. Of course, the Africans and Caribbeans brought their own customs with them, although they were frequently prevented from practicing them. West of the 13 original states, the remainder of the North American continent within the area now constituting the nation was inhabited by several million Native Americans representing hundreds of tribes, each with its own set of customs.

At its birth, the U.S.A. was essentially an agrarian society. More than 90% of the population were farmers. There were few cities with as many as 5,000 residents. Boston was the largest city with 16,000, and New York was the second largest with 13,000 (Reiss 1980). The Industrial Revolution had yet to begin. Few men, and virtually no women, were employed outside the family home. Although it has become common to think of the 20th-century pattern of role specialization, with the man serving as the family provider and the woman as the housekeeper and childcare provider, as the traditional American pattern, it did not characterize this early-American agrarian family. Family tasks tended to be performed out of necessity, with both men and women making direct and important contributions to the economic welfare of their families. Sexual norms and practices in early America arose in this social context.

The images of early-American sexuality in folklore are those of antihedonistic Puritanism and sexually repressed Victorianism. In popular culture, these terms have come to be associated with sexual prudishness. This view is oversimplistic and potentially misleading. Recent scholars (D’Emilio & Freedman 1988; Robinson 1976; Seidman 1991) tend to agree that sexuality was valued by the 18th-century Puritans and 19th-century Victorians within the context of marriage. To the Puritans, marriage was viewed as a spiritual union, and one that tended to emphasize the duties associated with commitment to that union. Marriage involved mutual affection and respect, and the couple was viewed as a primary social unit. Spouses were expected to fulfill reciprocal duties. One of these was sexual expression. No marriage was considered complete unless it was consummated sexually. The Puritans accepted erotic pleasure, as long as it promoted the mutual comfort and affection of the conjugal pair. The reciprocal duties of marital sexuality were justified, because they were seen as preventing individuals from becoming preoccupied with carnal desires and the temptation to practice improper sex outside of marriage (Seidman 1991). Of course, one of the principal functions of marital sex was reproduction. Pleasure alone did not justify sexual union. Instead, the regulation of sexual behavior reinforced the primacy of marital reproductive sex and the need for children (D’Emilio & Freedman 1988).

Within this context, it is certainly true that the early English settlers tried to regulate nonmarital forms of sexual expression. However, even this point can be exaggerated. Reiss (1980) has noted that Americans have always had a courtship system where individuals were free to select partners of their own choice. To some extent, this may have been because of necessities imposed by immigration to frontier territories, but it also was a consequence of the freedom settlers had from the institutions of social control found in Europe. Elsewhere, Reiss (1960, 1967) has maintained that such autonomy in courtship is associated with greater premarital sexual permissiveness.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that the settlers in New England developed the practice of bundling as a form of courtship. In colonial New England, settlers faced harsh winters. They commonly faced fuel shortages, and mechanized transportation forms had yet to be developed. Single men would travel miles to visit the home of an eligible female. Typically, they would spend the night before returning home the next day. Few New England homes of the period had multiple rooms for housing a guest, and few could heat the house for an entire 24-hour day. At night, the woman’s family would bundle the man and the woman separately in blankets, and they would spend the night together talking to each other as they shared the same bed. It is worth noting that the practice of bundling was restricted to winters. Reiss (1980) has argued that the implicit understanding that the couple would avoid a sexual encounter was not always honored. In fact, a study of marriages in Groton, Massachusetts, from 1761 to 1775 found that one third of the women were pregnant at the time of their weddings (cited in Reiss 1980). This system was acceptable because betrothals were rarely broken at the time and because it served to produce the marital unions the Puritans valued so highly. Eventually, bundling was replaced by visits in the sitting parlors of 19th-century homes and by the practice of dating outside parental supervision in the 20th century (Reiss 1980).

Around 1800, the Industrial Revolution began changing this world, albeit gradually. In the two centuries since, virtually every aspect of American life has been transformed. The 19th century was marked by social turmoil, a frontier mentality open to radical change, and a resulting patchquilt of conflicting trends and values. Among the events that left their mark on American culture in the 19th century were the following:

Pankhurst and Houseknecht (1983) have identified five major trends that they maintain began to change and shape the modern institutions of marriage and the family in the 19th century and continued to have an impact on American culture in the 20th century. The author of this section suggests that they have had a similar influence on sexual institutions. These trends are:

We do not have the space to explore fully the impact of each of these trends. However, relevant effects would include increased lifespans, decreased maternal and infant mortality at childbirth, the development of effective contraceptives, the emergence of a consumer culture that allows families to purchase most of their goods and services, the creation of labor-saving household technologies, increased leisure time, the development of modern forms of transportation, especially automobiles and airplanes, an increasing divorce rate, the increasing entry of wives and mothers into the labor force, decreasing birthrates and family size, increasing rates of single-parent families and cohabitation, increasing percentages of adults living alone, and increasing proportions of married couples with no children currently living at home (Coontz 1992). Many of these changes have resulted in greater personal autonomy for individuals. As Reiss (1960, 1967) has argued, such autonomy may be a major factor underlying several changes in sexuality throughout American history.

It should be stressed that these changes have not necessarily been linear or consistent throughout the period of the Industrial Revolution. Many began to emerge in the 19th century but accelerated and became mainstream patterns only in the 20th century. For example, as late as 1900, a majority of Americans were still farmers. The 1920 census was the first to show a majority of the population living in towns and cities. By 1980, only 4% of Americans still lived on farms (Reiss 1980). Similarly, women began entering the labor force in the early 19th century. However, it was not until 1975 that one half of married women were employed. By 1990, 70% of married women between the ages of 25 and 44 were employed (Coontz 1992). Yet another example is provided by the divorce rate. It had been gradually increasing for decades. That rate doubled between 1965 and 1975, and for the first time, couples with children began divorcing in sizable numbers at that time (Coontz 1992; Reiss 1980; Seidman 1991).

Seidman (1991) has described the principal change in American sexuality during the 19th century as the “sexualization of love.” It could also be described as a shift to companionate marriage. Marriage came to be defined less as an institutional arrangement of reciprocal duties, and more as a personal relationship between the spouses. The modern concept of love as a form of companionship, intimacy, and sharing came to be seen as the primary justification for marriage. As this process continued, the erotic longings between the partners, and the sexual pleasures shared by them, became inseparable from the qualities that defined love and marriage. By the early part of the 20th century, the desires and pleasures associated with sex came to be seen as a chief motivation and sustaining force in love and marriage (Seidman 1991). This view has come to be so dominant in the contemporary U.S.A. that few Americans today can envision any other basis for marriage.

D’Emilio and Freedman (1988) have argued that what they call the liberal sexual ethic described in the previous paragraph has been the attempt to promote this view of the erotic as the peak experience of marriage while limiting its expression elsewhere. However, as this view became the dominant American sexual ideology of the 20th century, it also served to legitimate the erotic aspects of sexuality itself (Seidman 1991). Eventually, groups emerged which have sought to value sex for its inherent pleasure and expressive qualities, as well as for its value as a form of self-expression. In effect, as the view that sexual gratification was a critical part of happiness for married persons became the dominant sexual ideology of 20th-century America, then it was only a matter of time until some groups began to question how it could be restricted only to married persons (D’Emilio & Freedman 1988).

B. The 20th Century

The social turmoil and the pace of social change that marked the 19th century accelerated exponentially in the 20th century. American culture in the 20th century became increasingly complicated and changed by often-unanticipated developments in technology, communications, and medicine. Among the events that have been identified as significant in 20th-century United States are the following:

These and other events too numerous to list, let alone analyze here, both contributed to and reflect the tension between the two ideologies mentioned above—one viewing sex as legitimate only in marriage, but as a necessary component of marital happiness, and the other viewing sex as a valid and important experience in its own right. The attempt to reconcile them can be seen as an underlying dynamic for many sexual practices and changes in the 20th century. These broad-based trends include:

Reactions to these trends, and the continuing tension between the two major ideologies we have outlined above, lie at the very heart of the ongoing conflicts over sexual issues today. Robinson (1976) has characterized this conflict as a battle between 19th-century romanticism and what he calls sexual modernism. Romanticism affirmed the essential worth of the erotic, but only within the context of an intense interpersonal relationship transformed by a spiritual and physical union. Modernism reaffirms this romantic ideal, but also transforms it by acknowledging the value of “an innocent physical need” (p. 194). Although the modernist is glad to be rid of Victorian repression and anticipates the promise of a greater sexual freedom, there is a concomitant fear of a future of emotional emptiness.

Reiss (1981) has characterized this as a conflict between what he calls the traditional-romantic and modern-naturalistic ideologies. He maintains that this distinction can be used to explain current conflicts over such issues as abortion, gender roles and differences, pornography, definitions of sexual exploitation, concepts of sexual normality, and even accounts of sexual history itself. This perspective is useful in interpreting mass-media claims about sexuality in the U.S.A. Thus, Lyons (1983), reporting for The New York Times, proclaimed that the “sexual revolution” was over by the 1980s and that America was experiencing a return to traditional values and lifestyles. To support his argument, he claimed that there was a recent decrease in the number of sex partners and a shift away from indiscriminate, casual sexual behavior (Lyons 1983). In contrast, Walsh (1993), writing for Utne Reader, proclaimed that the 1990s have been characterized by a renewed sexual revolution (second-wavers), with pioneering new philosophies and techniques employing technology (latex, computer imaging, computer networks, virtual-reality sex, phone sex, cathode rays, and group safe sex) to achieve sensual pleasure in a safe way.

From 1970 to 1990, as these social processes continued, Americans witnessed: 1. a decrease in the marriage rate; 2. an increase in the divorce rate; 3. an increase in the birthrate for unmarried mothers (although the overall adolescent birthrate decreased); 4. an increase in single-parent families; and 5. an increase in married couples without children at home (Ahlburg & DeVita 1992).

[C. The 21st Century

[Sexuality and Terrorism in the United States

RAYMOND J. NOONAN

[Update 2003: On September 11, 2001, terrorists, in a spectacular, well-planned, and coordinated attack, struck the United States by flying hijacked jumbo jets into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., with another jet apparently bound for another Washington landmark being brought down in a field in western Pennsylvania. Although it has been minimally highlighted, sexuality factors may well have been among the root causes of the attack, and, it would appear, other terrorist activities worldwide. In addition, little has been written about the impact that these attacks, as well as the subsequent “war on terrorism” or the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, may have had on the sexuality of Americans in the aftermath. Indeed, using the human sexuality complex (Noonan 1998b) as a theoretical framework, i.e., looking at our sexuality as a complex ecological system in a holistic environment, one would surmise that these events, like other outside factors, such as economic, political, and other social factors, of necessity, have had—and would have to have—an impact. Certainly, they have triggered responses that will be felt in the sexual sphere, as well as other aspects of American life, as we advance through the 21st century.

[Terrorism is a relatively simple set of destructive behaviors with a complex set of motivations. The possibility that terrorism might be ultimately rooted in sexual motivations often receives a look of incredulous bemusement. Yet, it should be apparent that sexuality factors, including profoundly different views of the roles and essence of men and women and their relative power in personal relationships and society, the value of premarital virginity and its relationship to marriage as an economic institution benefiting the extended family versus marriage and relationships as expressions of love and personal autonomy, and the conflict in demarcating masculinity and femininity arising from same-sex relationships and the globalization of American popular culture, have the capacity to provide the fuel for the intensity of the clash between civilizations that has come to define international terrorism.

[These are especially salient when religion, with its precepts and notions of purity and impurity so deeply linked to sex and the dualistic split between the body and mind/spirit, is considered. It is easier to understand territorial, political, and economic motivations—or even ancient interethnic rivalries—whereas the religious motivations, such as the Islamic fundamentalism ascribed to the 9/11 terrorists, seem incongruous with the way most Americans view religion and the efforts needed to impose it and its sexual and gender ethic on everyone. The sole exception in the United States seems to be the Christian-fundamentalist anti-abortion terrorists who attack abortion clinics and sometimes kill clinic workers, albeit on a much smaller scale than the worldwide attacks of the Islamic extremists. Still, abortion terrorists have helped to restrict access to legal abortions in hospitals, as well as to providers in many U.S. states (Baird-Windle & Bader 2001). The difference between the two groups may signify a difference between the worldviews of the monolithic entity known as Western Civilization and some of the other non-Western cultures, which will be discussed later.

[Norman Doidge (2001), a research psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who teaches at Columbia University and the University of Toronto, summarized the various news reports that several of the September 11 terrorists had visited prostitutes and lap dancers in the days prior to the attacks and noted suggestions that various commentators have made about their possible motivation for frequently behaving in ways contrary to their expressed piousness: For example, they may have been using sex as an anxiety reliever prior to their suicide missions or as a confirmation of their belief that they were protecting Islam from the sexual licentiousness that they ascribed to Western cultures, in particular to that of the United States, which would then “justify” the murders in their own minds. In contrast, Doidge suggested that their behavior “reveals the ambivalent sexual undercurrent that is part of Islamic extremism with its view of woman as sin-evoking temptress, best appreciated either totally veiled, or totally unveiled.” In summarizing other terrorists with similar contradictions, he wrote further:

But fanatics throughout history have had a markedly hypocritical attitude toward sex. Most fanatical sects have an obsession with sexual purity, alongside extraordinary lapses of restraint. Most divide the world into the pure and the impure, the sacred and the profane, clean and unclean, pure ascetic man and female temptress. . . . Fanatical leaders frequently demand their members subordinate all desires to the cause. . . .
            Islamic extremism doesn’t master sexuality—it exploits it by linking it to politics. In order to train Islamic suicide bombers, teenage boys are isolated from television and any outside influence when they are at the height of their sexual drive, playing on the Koranic promise to “martyrs” that, within moments of their death, they will be greeted by the 72 houris of heaven—virgins with whom they will have sex for eternity. Sex in this earthly world is devalued, but the promise of sex in the world to come is used to heat up the imaginations of these isolated, inexperienced loners. . . .
            Such cults frustrate everyday erotic longing for other people, so that the devotees will turn that longing toward the cult leader and the cause. Becoming overheated “lovers of the cause,” they, like lovers everywhere, become willing to sacrifice for their beloved. At the same time, their leaders manipulate the guilt followers feel about sexual desire, saying, “If you still have sexual feelings, you obviously are not devoted enough, and must sacrifice more.”
            People who deny themselves erotic outlets soon see any normal expression of eros as the devil incarnate. . . .

[It is known that sexual activity can have an ameliorative effect on suicidal ideation and depression, preventing many suicides (Planned Parenthood Federation of America 2003). It may also have the same effect on some forms of violence. Individuals who have a positive attitude toward sex, per se, tend not to be terrorists. However, in wars of liberation, it is known that when they are successful, there often follows a period of unrestrained sexual activities, although it may not last if the leadership turns out to be generally repressive of sexuality, as occurred in Russia following the October 1917 Revolution, as noted in the chapter on Ukraine in this volume. This sexual freedom can be attributed to the fact that sexuality often symbolizes personal liberation for many people, particularly if they have lived under sexually repressive social systems.

[Suppression of the sexual impulse allows the power of sex to be subverted for destructive political ends, as in the case of current Muslim and Christian extremists, although it can be used for “positive” purposes, as the channeling of religious fervor for some clerics (cf. George Orwell’s 1984). Thus, combined with other factors, such as the fact that it has been almost a century since Muslim colonial aspirations, which peaked with the Ottoman Empire, were dismantled at the end of World War I, ending centuries of dominance and Arab Islamic control over vast areas of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Yet, little if anything is said about the fact that, like the European Christian colonialists of the past, the Arab Muslim colonialists of the past conquered many more lands, imposing Islam on the inhabitants. (This silence may be attributable to the anti-Western sentiments that are currently fashionable in some American circles, as well as often well-meaning efforts to promote multiculturalism and diversity.) Indeed, as noted by Wolfgang Giegerich (a Jungian psychologist, in Fraim 2002), Islam was once the leading intellectual force in the world, although it has had little to offer the world for centuries. This has resulted in a sense of inferiority and shame that few Westerners can feel, which may account for the level of desperation seen in the terrorist attacks here and abroad.

[In his essay, “Islamic Terrorism,” Giegerich (in Fraim 2002) has noted that, of the world’s great religions, Islam is the only one that does not have a significant tradition of self-reflection—one in which basic premises and human-behavioral imperatives are evaluated in light of social and other advances in civilization. In fact, Giegerich advances the theory that it is a temporal clash and not a clash of civilizations that exists, one in which Islamic thought is stuck in the Middle Ages. Thus, he believes the West must look to its own past to understand their anger in order to find solutions. Thus, one can readily imagine how sexuality factors, as very powerful modern images projected through American popular culture, are fueling the terrorists’ aggression (see the section on Sexuality and American Popular Culture at the end of this chapter).

[It is clear that one major factor in the sexual revolution in the West that has been increasingly adopted by younger people all over the world as they are exposed to Western ideals is the central importance of love and intimacy as a foundation for marriage and other sexual relationships. This is in sharp contrast to the centrality of marriage as an economic community and family institution, for example, in Islam today and most other religious traditions in both the East and West in the past if not still today. Thus, unsanctioned sexual relations threaten the power politics of traditional patriarchal societies, as younger people assume this aspect of control over their own lives.

[Another probable overlooked sex-related factor in terrorism is the Malthusian principle of population growth and its effects on the ecological psychosocial environment (Malthus 1798). Historically, programs aimed at increasing population growth have been promoted to fill the ranks of warriors, taxpayers, menial laborers, and religious adherents, to which, today, has been added consumer markets. This is in addition to the intrapsychological pressures some people feel to prove their masculinity or femininity to themselves and others by having babies.

[One of the most important sequelae of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. has been the reassertion both of male heroism and its closely allied cousin, the conservative political agenda. Much of this resurgence has as much to do with the traditional male role as protector—reinvigorated as a result of the attacks—as it probably has to do with the reaction to both the misandrist and heterophobic undercurrents that can be found in contemporary American culture, which are fueled largely by those who wish to exploit them for their own personal and political agendas on both the left and the right. Thus, we can probably expect to see a gender shift toward the expression of more-traditional masculine posturing, which has been clearly evident in the post-9/11 world in the United States. Indeed, much was made of the exaggerated images of President George W. Bush’s genital region (reminiscent of the codpieces used to enhance the “manhood” of the aristocracy in the 15th and 16th centuries), when he descended from the cockpit of a fighter jet and crossed the deck of an aircraft carrier after the war in Iraq (Goldstein 2003). Research is needed to ascertain the impact that these new gender realities will have on American sexuality.

[Effects of Terrorism and War on the Sexuality of Americans. It is well known that war can have a significant impact on birthrates in the immediate areas of armed conflict (declining during a war and increasing immediately following it), as noted by the authors on the chapters on Croatia and Israel in this volume, although research on the concomitant effects on sexual behavior, per se, are rare, if nonexistent. Certainly, the post-World War II baby boom has been partially attributed to the impact of men returning from military service. The impact of terrorist bombings, being that they are typically more sporadic and uncertain and are directed against civilian populations, is also likely to have had an effect where they have occurred as they have had in Israel. Similar effects of the tensions of the Cold War appear not to have had an effect, although it has been conjectured that the potential nuclear threat may have encouraged early sexual experimentation in the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, combined with the introduction of the oral contraceptive pill, following the stifling 1950s. Still, even unarmed conflict can have an impact on sexuality, as noted in the chapter on Russia in this volume, where, following the collapse of Communism and the ensuing severe economic crisis, the birth and marriage rates fell sharply, as well as life expectancies, and divorce rates increased. Even population migration caused by wars can result in cross-cultural conflicts in the new lands, often surrounding sexual issues, as noted in the chapter on Sweden in this volume. In addition, the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases can increase, as noted in the chapter on Ukraine. Indeed, even wide-area events like the historic blackout of August 2003 affecting New York and several other northeastern states and parts of Canada, suggesting vulnerabilities to less-violent forms of terrorism, brought reminiscences of increased birthrates following past regional blackouts.

[The heightened levels of security also can have an effect. There is a fine line between reasonable security procedures and the enhanced anxiety generated by exaggerated security measures. In addition to keeping vigilant about one’s surroundings, such measures keep gloom-and-doom scenarios fresh in people’s minds, with the enhanced anxiety that can have an impact on intimate relationships. To be sure, terrorist attacks remain a dangerous reality and probable source of anxiety in the U.S. and worldwide. Post-traumatic stress disorder has been documented in New York City, where it was the most prevalent following the terrorist attacks, as well as in the rest of the U.S. It is likely to continue for some time, given that political and business leaders appear committed to not rebuilding the Twin Towers (Noonan 2002). Certainly, the terrorists were more aware of the symbolic value of the Towers than our leaders are. Surely, also, the Malthusian effects noted above are part of the overemphasis being placed on 9/11 memorials at the World Trade Center site, which is also working against the restoration efforts, which could accelerate the healing process. Stress is well known to disrupt sexual functioning as well as creates other strains on intimate relationships.

[Comments about the new awareness of the importance of family and personal relationships, in contrast to work and other concerns, were made in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on the United States. However, this was largely anecdotal, and may have amounted to a blip in actual practice that is beginning to shift again. Further research is needed to clarify these changes, although whether sufficient previous data are available for comparison is uncertain.

[Americans appear to be deeply ambivalent about the leadership role in world affairs it has had roughly since World War II. The September 11 attacks may, thus, signify a turning point in American world (and domestic) consciousness, with a retreat from leadership roles in any domain (clearly evident in the failure to recognize the symbolic importance of rebuilding the Twin Towers), with the possible exception of computer technology. And this failure to lead is reflected in some areas of the sexual arena as well, as can be seen throughout this chapter. The much-touted “American Century” of the 1900s (mostly the second half), may have been our historical apogee, with the ebb and flow of dominant nations and empires about to shift. The United States has certainly lost its illusion of moral authority in the eyes of much of the world (if not in the eyes of its own people), as fundamental corruptions in the legal, political, and economic systems become more apparent—this despite the fact that much of how these American systems operate more closely approach the ideals that free peoples value than those of many other countries. Sexuality factors—including ostensibly “liberal” attitudes and behaviors, are not the predominant reason for this decline in American moral authority, although it is cited as such by some critics, both inside and outside our country—further justifying oppressive political and sexual agendas that have yet to be seen.

[Terrorism and AIDS notwithstanding, we in the West, and Americans in particular, continue to live in a significantly less-risky era than our ancestors. As a result, women as well as men have enjoyed this relatively risk-free environment for decades, perhaps contributing to the increased devaluation of men because their traditional role as protector has been diminished. Yet, it appears that fanatical Islamic fundamentalists are intent on world domination, in a way similar to that for which fundamentalist Christians also strive. The early Arab Muslims seemed to be the Eastern equivalents of the Western colonialists of Europe. The contrast in methods of achieving it appears to be the difference between a series of conquests up to the Ottoman Empire, which fell after World War I, on the one hand, and the evangelical missionaries that have continued to thrive in many areas throughout the world. It remains to be seen to what extent the extensive out-migration of Islam to the West is, in effect, a silent evangelical push to reestablish the dominance of Islam, following the generally bloodless approach of the Christians, or is simply a search for religious freedom and the promise of a better life that is still America. In the meantime, Cherchez le sexe to determine the level of intensity with which terrorists will act to impose their visions on others. (End of update by R. J. Noonan)]

2. Religious, Ethnic, and Gender Factors Affecting Sexuality

Social scientists have demonstrated an association between human behavior and such social factors as religion, race, gender, social class, and education. This is as true of sexuality as of other forms of behavior. Although sexuality researchers have not always incorporated a recognition of this principle in their designs and analyses, there is still abundant evidence that sexual practices in the U.S.A. are strongly related to social factors. In this section, we examine several examples. First, we review the general influence of the Judeo-Christian heritage in the U.S.A. and describe the sexual culture of a particular religious group within this tradition, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). Next, we see a brief discussion of reemerging spirituality-sexuality movements. Then we review the sexual customs of two of the largest minority groups in the U.S.A., African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, followed by a look at Native American sexuality. Finally, we review the emergence of feminist ideology in the U.S.A., a view constructed around the concept of gender, which is contrasted with a look at emerging men’s perspectives on sex and gender and a review of the concept of heterophobia in American life. These reviews are by no means exhaustive or complete, but should serve to illustrate both the diversity of social groups within the U.S.A. and the influence that membership in such groups exerts on sexual customs and practices.

A. Source and Character of Religious Values

General Character and Ramifications of American
Religious Perspectives on Sexuality

ROBERT T. FRANCOEUR and TIMOTHY PERPER

Sexual science in America is a mid- to late-20th-century discipline. By contrast, Western religious thought about love, sexuality, marriage, the social and familial roles of men and women, and the emotions and behavioral patterns associated with courtship, pair bonding, conception, and birth have textual bases in the Jewish Pentatuch and other biblical writings. In pre-Christian Hellenic thought, the first great document of sexology is Plato’s Symposium (ca. 400 B.C.E.). Because Judaic and Hellenic thought have strongly influenced the sexual views of Christianity and all of Western culture, one must acknowledge that the theological, religious, and secular writings that permeate American conceptions of sexuality are embedded in this 3,500-year-old matrix that gives sexuality its place in life (and unique meanings). This section will explore the sources and character of religious values in the U.S.A. and their impact on sexual attitudes, behaviors, and policies.

Religious Groups in the U.S.A. Statistically, Americans are 61% Protestant—21% Baptist, 12% Methodist, 8% Lutheran, 4% Presbyterian, 3% Episcopalian, and 13% other Protestant groups, including the Church of Latter-Day Saints (see the second major subsection below for a more in-depth discussion of the sexual doctrines and practices of this religious group), Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and others. Roman and Eastern-rite Catholics account for 25% of Americans, Jews 2%, 5% other religious groups, and 7% are not affiliated with any church. Therefore, the two largest denominations in the U.S.A. are the Roman Catholic Church with a membership of over 50 million and Southern Baptist Conventions with between 10 and 15 million members (Greeley 1992). There are also 2.5 million Muslims in the U.S.A.

Because Americans tend to cluster geographically according to both their religious and ethnic heritages, local communities can be much more strongly affected by a small but highly concentrated religious or ethnic tradition than the above percentages might suggest at first sight. With recent public debate focusing on sexual morality (e.g., contraception, abortion, and homosexuality), a paradoxical realignment has occurred, with liberal Roman Catholics, mainstream Protestant churches, and liberal and reformed Jews lining up on one side of these issues, and conservative (Vatican) Roman Catholics, fundamentalist Protestants, including the televangelists and Southern Baptists, Orthodox Jews, and fundamentalist Muslims on the other side.

A Basic Conflict Between Two Worldviews. American religious institutions on the national level, their local religious communities, and individual members are caught in a pervasive tension between the security of traditional unchanging values and the imperative need to adapt perennial religious and moral values to a radically new and rapidly changing environment. This tension permeates every religious group in the United States today, threatening schism and religious “civil war” (Francoeur 1994).

At one end of the spectrum are fundamentalist, evangelical, charismatic factions that accept as word-for-word truth the writings of the Bible as the word of God, and advocate the establishment of the United States as a Christian nation. For them, living under God’s rule would be evidenced by the man firmly established as the head of each family in the U.S.A. and the woman in her God-given role as submissive wife and bearer of children for the Kingdom of Heaven. Similar fundamentalist strains in the United States are apparent among ultra-orthodox Jews and radical Muslims (LeHaye & LeHaye 1976; Marty & Appleby 1992, 1993, 1994; Penner & Penner 1981; Wheat & Wheat 1981). These embody an absolutist/natural law/fixed worldview.

On the conservative side, books about sexuality written by married couples dominate the market and sell millions of copies without ever being noticed by the mainstream publishing industry. Intended for Pleasure (Wheat & Wheat 1981) and The Gift of Sex (Penner & Penner 1981)—the latter couple having been trained by Masters and Johnson—provide detailed information on birth control and express deep appreciation of sex as a gift to be enjoyed in marriage. Tim and Beverly LeHaye’s The Act of Marriage celebrates marital sexual pleasure, but disapproves of homosexuality and some sexual fantasy. All books in this category stress mutual pleasuring and the importance of female enjoyment of marital sex.

At the other end of the spectrum are various mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims who accept a processual/evolutionary worldview (Fox 1983, 1988; Curran & McCormick 1993; Heyward 1989; Kosnick et al. 1977; Nelson 1978, 1983, 1992; Nelson & Longfellow 1994; Ranke-Heinemann 1990; Spong 1988; Thayer 1987; Timmerman 1986) rather than the fixed fundamentalist worldview. In this processual worldview, the sacred divinely revealed texts are respected as

the record of the response to the word of God addressed to the Church throughout centuries of changing social, historical, and cultural traditions. The Faithful responded with the realities of their particular situation, guided by the direction of previous revelation, but not captive to it. (Thayer et al. 1987)

The most creative and substantive analysis of the evolution and variations in biblical sexual ethics over time is William Countryman’s Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today. (For a full annotated list of sexuality texts, see Cornog & Perper 1995.)

The tension between the values and morals derived from fixed worldviews and those derived from processual worldviews is evident in official church debates about sexual morality and is also experienced by church members as they struggle to find their way through the confusion resulting from these two views. But it also affects the lives of secular Americans with no connection with a church, mosque, or synagogue, because the religious debate over sexual values permeates all levels of American society, and no one can escape the impact of this debate and conflict on politics, legislation, and social policies. Table 1 is an attempt to describe in a nondefinitive way the two divergent sets of values derived from the processual and fixed worldviews. Table 2 lists some religious traditions in both the fixed and processual worldviews in the major religions around the world.

Table 2                  

A Spectrum of Ethical Systems with Typical Adherents in
Different Religious Traditions

This table is an attempt to visualize the range of sexual moralities in different religious traditions and relate them in terms of their basic worldviews. There is often more agreement between different Jews, Protestants, and Catholics at one or the other end of the spectrum, than there is between Protestants, or Catholics, or Jews who disagree in their worldviews. Protestants in the covenant tradition, for instance, have more in common with liberal Catholics who disagree with the Vatican’s opposition to such practices as contraception, masturbation, premarital sex, abortion, divorce, and homosexuality, than they do with their fellow Protestants who are members of the fundamentalist Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, or Focus on the Family.
Tradition Source	A Spectrum or Continuum
	Fixed Philosophy of Nature	Process Philosophy of Nature
Roman Catholic tradition	Act-oriented natural law/divine law order ethics expressed in formal Vatican pronouncements	A person-oriented, evolving ethics expressed by many contemporary theologians and the 1977 Catholic Theological Society of America study of human sexuality.
Protestant nominalism	Fundamentalism based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, as endorsed by the Moral Majority and the religious New Right: Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Church of Latter-Day Saints	An ethic based on the covenant announced between Jesus and humans—examples in the 1970 United Presbyterian workstudy document on Sexuality and the Human Community, Unitarian/ Universalists, and the Society of Friends (Quakers)
Humanism	Stoicism and epicurean asceticism	Situation ethics, e.g., the 1976 American Humanist Association’s “A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities”
Judaism	Orthodox and Hasidic concern for strict observation of the Torah and Talmudic prescriptions	Liberal and reformed application of moral principles to today’s situations
Islam	Orthodox; observance of female seclusion (purdah) and wearing of the veil (chador); ritual purifications associated with sexual activities	Secular; more or less adoption of Western gender equality; flexible/lax observance of sex-associated purification rituals
While Eastern religions may, in some cases, fit in with this dualism of worldviews, the ascetic traditions of the East are positive traditions and lack the negativism towards sexuality that permeates the history of Christian asceticism and celibacy. Eastern asceticism is seen as a positive balance to the Eastern’s embrace of sexuality as both a natural pleasure to be greatly enjoyed and a path to the divine union. Also, the relationship with the dichotomous weltanschauungs evident in Western traditions needs to be explored and explicated.
Hinduism	Ascetic tradition of monks with world-denying sexual abstinence; yoga; ritual taboos and purification rites associated with sexual activities	Sacramental view of sex with worship of male lingam and female yoni; the Kama Sutra
Buddhism	Ascetic tradition of monks with sexual abstinence	Tantric traditions in which sexual relations are a path to divine union

Modern America is a ferment of discourse and debate concerning relationships between sexuality and religion. This occurs on the local and personal level among church members, as well as on the administrative level among the church leadership. The vast majority of local church debates are not reported in the popular press. These debates center on the interpretations of revelation, religious truths, and the nature and place of sexuality within a particular absolutist/natural law/fixed worldview or processual/evolutionary worldview. From time to time, denominational leaders and assemblies issue authoritative statements in denominational position or workstudy papers. These formal statements are designed to answer questions of sexual morality and set church policy. However, contradictory majority and minority positions rooted in the opposing fixed and processual worldviews accomplish little beyond stirring heated debate and deferring the problem to further committee study (Francoeur 1987, 1994).

However, there is often a great difference between official church doctrine and its worldview and the views and practices of its members. For example, the most erotophilic religion in America may be grassroots Roman Catholicism as expressed and lived by the laity. Many rank-and-file American Catholics express great and amused doubt and scorn for the sexual pronouncements of the Vatican (Greeley 1995). Peter Gardella (1985) has made a strong case for the thesis that Christianity has, in fact, given America an ethic of sexual pleasure.

The Conservative Christian Coalition. Among the major forces in the American religious scene that affect public sexual mores is the conservative Christian Coalition. Among the fundamentalist Christians, one finds an extraordinary heterogeneity. There exists a large and virtually unstudied mixture of Pentecostal, fundamentalist, and evangelical/charismatic churches whose preachers expound on sexuality, marriage, family, and morality. Their opinions are diverse, and poorly known or understood by those outside their domain, especially sexologists. Two examples illustrate this: A religious pamphlet published by the Rose of Sharon Press in Tennessee, the buckle of the so-called Bible Belt in the U.S.A., extols the clitoris as the “cradle of love,” and the Reverend Timothy LeHaye reminds his followers that God indeed created the delights of oral sex for married couples (only) to enjoy. No statistical data exist concerning these groups, and we know nothing about sexual behavior among individuals within these churches.

The current strength of the power of the American religious right is evident in the wide-reaching branches of Pat Robertson’s political machine, the Christian Coalition, and the “electronic churches,” including Robertson’s cable television Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), with annual revenues of $140 million (Roberts & Cohen 1995). A parallel conservative culture is James Dobson’s multimedia empire, Focus on the Family, which includes ten radio shows, 11 magazines (including speciality publications for doctors, teachers, and single parents), bestselling books, filmstrips, and videos of all kinds, curriculum guides, church-bulletin fillers, and sermon outlines faxed to thousands of pastors every week. The popularity of Dobson’s first book, Dare to Discipline—with more than 2 million copies sold in 1977—inspired his formation of Focus on the Family, which now has an annual budget of $100 million and a staff of 1,300 workers who answer more than 250,000 telephone calls and letters a month (Roberts & Cohen 1995).

In the late 1980s, Protestant fundamentalist televangelists from the South were reaching millions of listeners. Their influence was weakened by several major sex scandals, but they continue to play a major role in the anti-abortion movement and are part of the Christian Coalition. In the same era, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops tried to establish a cable television network to bring the Catholic faith to the masses. Where they failed, a determined Catholic fundamentalist-charismatic, Mother Angelica, from Mobile, Alabama, succeeded with the Eternal Word Network, which brings ultraconservative interpretations of Catholic sexual and social morality to devoted listeners 24 hours a day.

In the southern states, on the east and west coasts, and in the populous midwest states are several hundred “mega-churches,” which draw upwards of 5,000 to 20,000 faithful every week to each church. Congregations seated in upholstered theater seats are inspired by the style of a professional theater with a large choir, orchestra, large screens displaying hymn verses for congregational singing, interpretive dance, Bible lessons with soft-rock concerts, and morality plays that rival anything on music television (MTV). These mega-churches are usually huge glass and steel shopping-mall-like complexes with large theater-stage sanctuaries, scores of meeting and classrooms for a variety of activities, including aerobics, multimedia Bible classes, counseling centers, and even bowling alleys, accompanied by acres of parking space. Sermons delivered by skilled “teaching pastors” include such topics as: how to find joy in a violent world, create a “happy day” each week, find rhythm between work and rest, handle teenage children, and discipline one’s mind to a biblical perspective. Youth, in particular, are attracted to the instant intimacy of this large-group, Disney-World environment. Weekly contributions from 15,000 members at one mega-church averaged $228,000, giving the church an annual budget of almost $12 million (Roberts & Cohen 1995). With the mainstream small local churches suffering a steady decline in attendance and contributions, many of the more-traditional pastors are turning to the mega-churches for pastoral retraining. Thus, the mega-churches are establishing smaller, local congregations. It appears that the way these churches deal with sexual issues may have a major impact on American sexuality because of the large memberships they are attracting.

Emergence of a Sex-Positive Individual-Based Value System. Diotima of Mantinea, Socrates’ instructress in the art of love in the Symposium, explained that the god Eros provides an avenue or way by which human beings reach upward to the Divine—a view modern classical scholars chauvinistically attribute to Socrates and call the “Erotic Ascent.” Historically, Diotima’s argument became the basis of the later Christian idea that God is Love. In Eurocentric Christianity, the first great flowering of Eros came between 1050 C.E. and 1200 C.E., when Ovid’s The Art of Love reached Europe from Arab-Spanish sources. The synthesis of sexuality and spirituality quickly assumed major status as a popular doctrine expressed in the music of the troubadours of “courtly love.”

Its most ardent opponents were the faculty of the medieval universities led by Thomas Aquinas, who developed a full and coherent alternative to the theology of the Platonic Erotic Ascent in the 13th century. The Thomistic synthesis, with its denunciation of the Erotic Ascent and analysis of the essence and goals of human sexuality in terms of a “natural law,” became the official Catholic view. This synthesis is the basis on which the modern magisterium and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church grounds its absolute condemnation of contraception, abortion, and the practice of homosexuality. By contrast, Protestantism has been much more accepting of sexuality and sexual pleasure, and more flexible with and accommodating to such issues as divorce, contraception, abortion, masturbation, premarital sex, and even homosexuality.

However, it was not the theory of Thomistic Aristotelianism that ultimately superseded late-medieval and Renaissance beliefs in Eros. These dwindled as Europe staggered under waves of the Black Death, which ultimately killed one quarter of Europe’s population; the Crusades, during which 22,000 people were killed in the Provençal city of Bezier alone; endless local wars among nobles, kings, and petty brigands where the peasants were invariably victimized; Turkish invasions; the epidemic of syphilis in 1493; peasant uprisings in Germany and England in the 1300s and 1400s; and the Inquisition, that specifically targeted women as its victims.

Protestant reformers, from Luther through Calvin, Knox, and Zwingli, not only rejected the “natural law” approach to sexual morality, but extended, strengthened, and normalized the nuclear family and the blessing of marital sex. This type of marriage was a valuable social institution for assuring the distribution of new wealth from father to son. For example, in northern European merchant families, it replaced the older, southern European models of inheritance by name, and social status by membership in a “house” (e.g., the “house of the Medici”), with this type of lineage system.

An important characteristic of the Renaissance was appreciation and acceptance of individual control of one’s own life. Thus, the late 1500s and early 1600s saw a new struggle of the young to wrest control over their love affairs and marriages from their parents and families. Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet epitomizes what was to become the central issue of the modern-American religious debate about sexuality and spirituality. Who is to control the sexuality of the young? Older and more powerful individuals, who have vested interests in the outcome of youthful sexuality; celibate church leaders still convinced of the unchangeable patriarchal sexual values expressed in the Genesis story of creation; or young people, who claim for themselves the right to find the right mates and express their erotic passion in a way that, for them, brings sexuality and transcendence together?

Of growing significance in the 1990s in the U.S.A. is the question of the sacred nature of Eros. Among the liberal religious bestsellers pioneering a new synthesis of sexuality and spirituality are: Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought (Kosnick et al. 1977), which was sponsored by the Catholic Theological Society of America, but was condemned by the Vatican; Original Blessing (1983) and The Coming of the Cosmic Christ (1988) by the Dominican, Matthew Fox (censured and expelled from his community by the Vatican); sociologist and erotic-novel author, Father Andrew Greeley’s Sex: The Catholic Experience (1995); lesbian theologian, Carter Heyward’s 1989 Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God; Presbyterian seminary professor, James Nelson’s books Embodiment (1978), Between Two Gardens: Reflections on Sexuality and Religious Experience (1983), and Body Theology (1992); James Nelson and Sandra Longfellow’s anthology on Sexuality and the Sacred (1994); William Phipps’ Recovering Biblical Sensuousness (1975); Catholic-feminist theologian, Joan Timmerman’s The Mardi Gras Syndrome: Rethinking Christian Sexuality (1986); and Episcopalian Bishop John Shelly Spong’s 1988 Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality. In addition, some Christians have turned to Eastern religions, particularly in the Tantric and Taoist traditions, to seek the nexus between sexuality and spirituality (Francoeur 1992).

Current and Future Religious Debate. During the 1980s, the most virulently debated issue was abortion. In 1994, between U.S. Supreme Court decisions and violence and murder by extreme anti-abortionists, support for anti-abortion stands stalled. For the majority of Americans, abortion appeared to fade as the central moral dilemma and joined the list of unresolved moral issues that includes war, drugs, crime, capital punishment, discrimination, and related social ills. Certain far-right religious leaders, who still have a devoted and vocal following and claim to speak for Christ, even conceded reluctantly that they could not win their war against abortion, and seemed to refocus their crusade on homosexuality and “the danger of homosexual rights” as their mobilizing issue.

However, with the mid-1995 success of the Republicans’ conservative hundred-day Contract with America, the Christian Coalition announced its own Contract with the American Family. Two-dozen legislative proposals were introduced into Congress, including an unprecedented attempt to ban and criminalize some now-legal abortions. A bill to reinstate a ban on abortions at American military hospitals overseas was passed. Other proposed bills would ban family planning programs from including abortion counseling for low-income women and adolescents; refuse funding to institutions that favor requiring obstetric/ gynecology programs to provide training in abortion procedures; overturn an executive order lifting a ban against using foreign-aid money for abortion counseling or referrals; end or restrict support for agencies, including the United Nations, that offer family planning programs with abortions funded by private money; limit federal Medicaid money for abortions to situations where the woman’s life is threatened and ban it in cases of incest or rape; ban fetal-tissue research; ban clinical testing of RU-486; restore a ban on counseling women about abortion at clinics that receive any federal money; and prohibit the federal employee’s health benefit plan from covering abortion. The ultimate goal is to make all abortions under all circumstances a crime.

The list of controversial sexual issues that are religiously debated with little hope of being resolved in the near future includes:

The American religious, and consequent social and political debates over each of these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future. The dichotomy of the two worldviews is too deeply embedded in the American culture to allow for a quick resolution. The more likely prognosis is for continued, tension-filled confrontations within the churches, denominations, and political/legislative arenas throughout the United States.

The Religious Right’s social and political agenda deeply divides American society. Although 40% of Americans express concern about the Democrats’ ties to radical liberal groups, 39% are worried by Republican ties to conservative special-interest groups like the Religious Right, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Eagle Forum, and the Christian Coalition (Roberts & Cohen 1995). These results reflect the continuing diversity of worldviews within the Judeo-Christian tradition. They also indicate that these religious differences not only result in contrasting sexual ideologies, but also have an important impact on political processes in the U.S.A. more broadly. As such, religion continues to be a major American social influence.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

JEANNIE FORREST [with comments in 1997 by Mark O. Bigler]

Mormon Origins and Polygyny. One example of a particular religious group within the general Judeo-Christian heritage is provided by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), which is the fastest-growing religion in the world today. The over seven million members are known colloquially as the Mormons. They base their belief system on the Bible and additional scriptures, most significantly the Book of Mormon, which is understood to be a record of God’s dealings with an ancient population of the American continent. The Mormons believe this book came from gold plates revealed to the church founder, Joseph Smith, in Ontario County, New York, in 1823. The church was officially organized in 1829.

The early Mormons were persecuted because their founder claimed the Bible had not been translated properly, that all other religions were false, that religious leaders did not have God’s authority—the priesthood—to act in God’s name, and finally that the practice of polygyny was a part of the divine plan. There was also the political reality that the tightknit Mormon communities exercised considerable local power. Interestingly, the term “polygamy” as used in LDS church history and old doctrine means the “condition or practice of having more than one spouse.” A more-accurate definition of the Mormon practice of that century lies in the word “polygyny,” meaning having more than one wife at one time. The role of polygyny in the church is a source of some embarrassment to mainstream modern-day Mormons, who may discuss the practice somewhat wryly as a revelation designed to build the church population at a time when they literally had to forge new communities under hardship. After several attempts to settle in an area and build a sectarian community, the Mormon pioneers ultimately settled in the Salt Lake City area of Utah, where the church is now headquartered.

Modern Mormon doctrine does not include the practice of polygyny. Church prophet and leader, Wilfred Woodruff, officially eliminated polygyny from doctrine in the Manifesto of 1890 (Ludlow 1992). This proclamation against plural marriage ended a decade of hardship and persecution against the church members, particularly by the Republican Party that had as part of its platform elimination of the “immoral practice of multiple wives.” While mainstream Mormons are not held accountable for not practicing plural marriage, they still must “suffer the curse of monogamy.” Today, small fundamentalist splinter groups still practice polygyny, despite state laws against it and lack of official church acknowledgment. Even before the church abandoned its practice of plural marriage, only a small fraction of Mormon men, between 3 and 15%, had more than one wife (Murstein 1974, 350-364).

Perhaps the persecution faced by the early members of the LDS regarding their marital patterns has contributed to a unique and paradoxical tension around sexuality. On one hand, there is nothing more sacred than sex within the bounds of church-sanctioned marriage. On the other hand, rarely is there found a modern-American subculture more prohibitive and repressive about sexuality.

Salvation and Sex. To further understand this tension, one needs a basic understanding of the Mormon Plan of Salvation. Before birth, the Mormons believe, the soul is alive as an intelligence in a spirit world. During this preexistence, a variety of situations are possible, including acts of valor that would allow the soul to be born into a family of Mormons where opportunities for service abound. At birth, the soul passes through a veil of forgetfulness where all memory of the preexistence is lost (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 1989; Moses 3:5, 7; Abraham 3:21-23, 35, 38; Talmage 1977).

During life on this earth, individuals face choices throughout the course of their lives that determine in which of three kingdoms they will spend eternity. The highest kingdom, the Celestial Kingdom, is reserved for those Latter-Day Saints who meet all the requirements of doctrine, one of the most important of which is marriage to another Saint in special temple rites. The exaltation and eternal life in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom are achieved only by faithful Mormons through the achievement and building of an eternal marriage, discussed later. (Other good people can only hope to reach the Terrestrial Kingdom, a kind of heaven on earth, while unrepented adulterers, practicing homosexuals, murderers, and other sinners are limited to the Telestial Kingdom, which some describe as a Mormon version of the Christian hell.)

[Comment 1997: According to Mormon tradition, “hell” is not a place, but rather a state of mind. Those who do not achieve the highest degree of glory (the Celestial Kingdom) will recognize the reward they might have had and live out their eternities with the knowledge of this lost potential. However, the Telestial Kingdom, though typically described in less-than-positive terms, is not generally thought of as the fire and brimstone of the traditional Christian hell. In fact, one prominent Mormon Church leader described the Telestial Kingdom as follows: “. . . all who receive any one of these orders of glory are at last saved, and upon them Satan will finally have no claim. Even the telestial glory ‘surpasses all understanding; And no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it’” (Talmage 1977, 92-93). (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

In Mormon belief, one’s marital status is decisive for the life hereafter. Without marriage, one can only become a servant angel ministering to those who are far more worthy of glory, the truly married. But most of those who have married on earth are married for time only (until death), and not truly married unless they have their marriage sealed in the temple. In heaven, those who are married only for this life will be single, no better than bachelors and spinsters. (In the Mormon view of heaven, one can enjoy all the pleasures of sex, food, and other sensual delights.) Those who are married by a prophet in the temple are sealed to each other and married for time and eternity. Couples in a sealed marriage will remain married for eternity, and enjoy reigning in separate kingdoms. It is also possible to marry for eternity and not for time. Thus a kindly man may marry a spinster for eternity but not for time, leaving her to her celibate lifestyle here, but destined for all the delights of the Celestial Kingdom as his mate in eternity (Murstein 1974, 350-362).

Gender Roles. As with all societies, gender roles among Mormons are scripted very early in life. The LDS church plays a distinct role in gender definition and scripting. Church activities segregate children at around the age of 12: boys are guided into vigorous endeavors, such as scouting and outdoor gamesmanship, whereas girls learn household activities and crafts.

[Comment 1997: To clarify Forrest’s comment above, it is important to note that Mormon adolescents frequently participate in mixed-gender activities. Although young men and young women generally meet separately as a part of the official church youth program (known variously as Mutual Improvement Association (M.I.A.), Mutual, and Young Men’s/Young Women’s Program), males and females come together for Sunday School and the Mormon worship service known as Sacrament Meeting. In addition, LDS seminaries—religious study programs for high-school-age teens (grades 9 through 12) that operate in virtually every location around the world where congregations of Mormons are found—are always conducted with male and female students meeting together. Furthermore, Mormon youth regularly attend church-sponsored dances and participate together in community activities, including school proms, holiday celebrations, and cultural events. Young Mormon women and men are encouraged to interact, though care is usually taken to provide chaperons or to direct young people into activities where the possibility of sexual contact is limited (e.g., Mormon youths are strongly encouraged by their church leaders and parents to date in groups and to establish curfews that will not keep them out past midnight). (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

It is not unusual for a preadolescent girl to have an LDS-designed poster on her bedroom wall urging her to remain “temple worthy,” or reminding her of gospel precepts that will keep her safe from worldly situations. For example, one poster is of a young girl looking into a mirror in whose reflection is a vision of herself as a young woman in a bridal scene with a handsome man. The caption says, “looking forward to a temple marriage.” Young men are also urged to bridle their carnal urges. Masturbation is expressly forbidden, and moral cleanliness, a requirement for any temple ceremony, essentially equates to abstaining from sexual activity before marriage.

[Comment 1997: In Mormon practice, “moral cleanliness” at its most basic level is understood as abstaining from sexual activity before marriage and remaining faithful to one’s spouse. It is not at all equated with celibacy, as the author has implied. A pamphlet for youth, recently published by the church, makes this position clear: “Our Heavenly Father has counseled that sexual intimacy should be reserved for his children within the bonds of marriage. . . . Because sexual intimacy is so sacred, the Lord requires self-control and purity before marriage as well as full fidelity after marriage” (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 1990, 14-15). (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

Gender roles become even more firmly established during transitions into adulthood. Church officials clearly define the position, duties, and destiny of women in the divine plan. Women are to be “copartners with God in bringing his spirit children into the world” (Tanner 1973); this is generally understood metaphorically without any sexual connotation. Rather than focus on the erotic element of this distinction (having babies does require first having sexual intercourse), the LDS leaders instead urge women to stay home in order to love and care for children to ensure a generation of Mormons who learn about their “duty as citizens and what they must do to return to their Heavenly Father.” Women are regarded as sacred vessels, with important roles not only in childbearing, but also as positive influences on men’s lives. A “general authority” in the church, Hugh B. Brown, suggests that “women are more willing to make sacrifices than are men, more patient in suffering, and more earnest in prayer” (Relief Society 1965). Women in the Mormon community are indeed known for their good works. The Relief Society is the oldest women’s group in the United States and is remarkably active with community support of all kinds.

[Comment 1997: Most Mormons, female and male alike, continue to hold traditional views concerning gender and gender roles. In general, Mormon women today still view motherhood and caregiving as fundamental traits of a “righteous” woman. However, it is also fair to say that the beliefs of church officials and the broader membership regarding gender roles have liberalized somewhat since President Hugh B. Brown’s statement in 1965. For example, in a recent general conference of the church, Chieko N. Okazaki, First Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency, urged LDS women to obtain an education and career training:

Each year it becomes increasingly important for women to improve their abilities to take care of themselves and their children economically, if circumstances should require. . . . If anything, [the counsel of Elder Howard W. Hunter] has become even more relevant in the almost twenty years that have passed as the national economy has made it increasingly difficult for one wage to support a family, as more mothers are left alone to raise their children, and as more women spend lengthy portions of their lives single. He is telling all of us to use the oar of study to prepare ourselves professionally for worthy and rewarding activities, including paid employment. (Okazaki 1994) (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

LDS men have a clearly defined role as well. Men bear the responsibility and the privilege of the Priesthood, which is a spiritual calling and connection to God specifically not given to women. An exception to this is found in LDS mission work, where young women on evangelical missions for the church have a type of “priesthood calling” on a temporary basis, lasting only for the duration of the mission.

[Comment 1997: Throughout the church’s history, Mormon women have served missions for the church. Today, young women (typically in their early 20s) are embarking on proselytizing and church service missions in ever-increasing numbers. Although Mormon men are encouraged much more strongly than are women to go on missions, teaching and preaching are not restricted to priesthood holders (males) in the church today. In fact, the priesthood is not a prerequisite for participation in most church positions, all of which are filled by lay members. Nevertheless, church leadership at its highest levels, both locally and generally, remains a function of the priesthood (male members). (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

Through the priesthood, God governs all things. Priesthood power is considered a vital source of eternal strength and energy, a responsibility delegated to men for the well-being of mankind. Holding the priesthood means having authority to act as God’s authorized agent, which includes some church organizational duties. The right of worthy priesthood holders is to preside over their descendants through all ages, achieving its highest function in the family. As the presiding priesthood holder in the home, decisions relating to discipline often fall to the man, and the role of providing for the household is ultimately his, in spite of the presence of more employed Mormon women. Giving righteous advice, loving family members, and the laying-on-of-hands for healing purposes are all rights of the man of the house.

[Comment 1997: In the ideal Mormon household, discipline, family decisions, and the day-to-day management of the home are seen as a shared responsibility between a unified husband and wife. Although Mormon fathers have been designated the presiding authority in the family (once again a function of the priesthood), it is the mother who is typically responsible for managing the home and children. However, male church members are counseled against the misuse of their designation as leader in the home, and men have been encouraged by the prophet and president of the church himself to share in parenting and home management:

A man who holds the priesthood accepts his wife as a partner in the leadership of the home and family with full knowledge of and full participation in all decisions relating thereto. . . . You share, as a loving partner, the care of the children. Help her to manage and keep up your home. Help teach, train, and discipline your children. (Hunter 1994, 5-7) (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

Body Theology. The Mormon doctrine about the body is worth noting since it creates another element of sexual tension. In many Christian religions, the body is considered simply a vessel housing the spirit/soul for the duration of life. For the Mormons, the body itself is highly revered and serves an eternal function. At the point of resurrection, the body of an individual is returned to “perfection,” ridding it of all the faults and defects of this life. A Mormon friend of mine often queries, “Just whose version of perfection will I get in Eternity? I have a list of modifications right here.”

One indication of the importance of the body is manifested by the wearing of “garments.” During the Temple marriage, a couple is given special “garments” to wear. This special underwear (manufactured by the Mormon church) is designed to serve as a reminder of the sanctity of the covenants made in the temple and to protect the body from harm. A quiet Mormon joke about the garments refers to them as “Mormon contraceptives,” since they must be worn next to the skin at all times and are notoriously unsexy in appearance. Women wear their foundation garments, such as brassieres and slips, over the Mormon garments. Because of the design of the garments, only modest clothing can be worn. However, the modern garments are much more relaxed and functional than traditional ones. The old versions are still available, with the tops extending just below the elbows and the bottoms below the knee, but most younger Mormon women opt for the cap sleeve and midthigh cotton versions for comfort and more choice in clothing.

[Comment 1997: Mormon garments (which are worn by both women and men) serve as a constant reminder of sacred covenants made in temple ceremonies. Mormons also believe that these undergarments help protect the wearer against physical and spiritual harm. In addition, the design of the underclothing encourages the wearing of modest clothing. Although temple garments are to be worn day and night under normal circumstances, church members are not required by either doctrine or dictum to keep their underclothing on during activities such as bathing or while participating in sporting events. Nor are faithful Mormons required to wear their garments during sexual activity. (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

Adolescent Dating. Adolescent dating rituals are very similar to those of other conservative American cultural groups. As LDS children grow older, the church plays more of a role in their lives, interweaving doctrinal and social activities. The transitions through church steps for adolescents are made in tandem with all their church peers. For instance, at 8 years old, children reach the “age of understanding” and are baptized into the church. Many of their peers are also taking this step, which takes on social significance in the form of family gatherings and informal parties. Later, dating is encouraged in group settings around church activities, since this context is most likely to encourage an interfaith marriage. Teens are often told, “if you don’t date outside, you won’t fall in love outside, and you won’t marry outside the faith.”

[Comment 1997: Dating among Mormon teens is not restricted solely to church activities, although local congregations do often sponsor teen-oriented events, such as dances, firesides (discussions of religious topics especially relevant to teens), and cultural activities (plays, concerts, art exhibits, etc.). While dating outside of the church is not strictly forbidden, it is, as the author states, discouraged by church leaders and parents in an effort to reduce the chances that a member will marry outside of the church. Families of particularly staunch members are likely to view the marriage of a child to someone from outside of the church as a lamentable and perhaps even shameful event. Although Mormons who are married to nonmembers are not excluded from church activity or normal religious practice, one’s relationship to the church is undoubtedly affected by the “part-member” status of the family. (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

At Brigham Young University, a Mormon-owned and operated institution in Provo, Utah, approximately 45 miles (72 km) south of Salt Lake City, a subculture of dating reigns. Known to be an ideal place for Mormon youth to find a same-faith marriage partner, it is also a hotbed of sexual exploration. Mormon coeds fine-tune their “NCMOS,” (pronounced “nick-moes”), which is an acronym for “noncommittal make-out sessions.” These sexual forays include “everything but intercourse”: extensive kissing, petting, and “dry humping” (rubbing bodies) is common, but touching of the genitals is typically off-bounds, as is penetration of any kind.

[Comment 1997: Brigham Young University, the oldest private university west of the Mississippi River, boasts a student body of more than 30,000, comprised almost entirely of young Mormons who come from every state in the country and many nations outside of the United States. The amount and types of sexual activities that the author reports occur among BYU students are not all that atypical of young college students in general. However, given the strict code of sexual conduct that Mormons have for themselves, even nongenital sex play and sexual activity short of intercourse give BYU the appearance of a “hotbed of sexual exploration.” At the same time, such activity also suggests that young Mormons have healthy sexual appetites, and perhaps are not as peculiar as it may first appear when compared to their peers on other American campuses. (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

Marriage, Sex, and the Celestial Kingdom. In order to access the Celestial Kingdom, a couple must marry in the temple. These temple rites seal the two partners together not just for life, but for all eternity. When a couple is in the Celestial Kingdom together, they can enjoy the full experience of their resurrected and eternally perfect bodies. The purpose of the sealed marriage is primarily to ensure the eternal connection between partners, allowing them to procreate and populate their own worlds (eternal procreation). An essential precept, “As man is, so God once was; as God is, so man can become,” guides heterosexual couples through life with the promise that they, as the God they worship has done, will become creators of their own world (Murstein 1974).

Although not formally prohibited, birth control is regarded with clear reservation by church members, since large families are viewed favorably. Women who leave the Mormon church often refer, “with tongue in cheek,” to their loss of opportunity to bear children during the afterlife. One woman commented, “At least I know I won’t be barefoot and pregnant through time and eternity.”

[Comment 1997: While birth control is regarded with reservation by many church members and authorities, various forms of contraception are commonly practiced, even by active, faithful members. Today, the decision to use birth control is left to the discretion of the couple. (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

The gender roles established early in the life of the couple are metaphorically established again during the marriage ceremony. The order of the Plan of Salvation is clearly outlined during the ceremony, as is the order of the household that symbolically supports the Divine Order when it is in accord with the Plan of Salvation. An interesting element of the temple marriage is the giving of a name to the bride, known only to her husband. This name is for the use of the husband in calling his wife to him in the afterlife. She does not have access to his secret name—the calling of partners in eternity is purely a masculine prerogative. The giving of the name to the bride is kept secret from outsiders, as is much of the rest of the ceremony, which is closed to all those without special church endowments. Mormon church weddings are different from typical American weddings in that only worthy LDS family members and friends are allowed into the temple to observe the ceremony itself. If a family member is an inactive church member or a nonmember, they will be excluded from the wedding ceremony, joining the party outside the temple or at the reception.

In the face of the lack of sexuality education, the first act of sexual intercourse for a good Mormon is likely to be ill-informed. One contemporary of mine recalls her first sexual experience, which took place after an LDS temple marriage: “We were both virgins, and it literally took us several weeks to consummate the marriage by having intercourse. We had been raised to believe sex was a sacred thing, so we just sat in bed, prayerfully, kissing gently and waiting for something to happen. Obviously, something finally did, but I was dreadfully disappointed. It not only didn’t feel sacred, it didn’t even feel good.” This particular couple did not seek therapy for support or education, relying instead on the Holy Spirit, a decision common among LDS couples.

Because the church operates with a lay ministry, the local bishop has an enormous influence on how issues of sexuality are handled. In most instances in which married couples face difficulty with sexual relations or general marital dissatisfaction, the bishop is the first and most likely source of comfort and counsel. Often the bishop is just a kindly intentioned neighbor with limited or no training. Many times, his response is based on his own experience, attitudes, aversions, and parental training. Some extremely compassionate bishops give forgiving responses to an individual who has erred sexually. Some bishops advise specifically against such behaviors as oral or anal sex. Others, repulsed by the vulgarity of even discussing the topic of sexuality, take refuge in esoteric spiritual or academic language or avoid the topic altogether. Still others may be open-minded and suggest that either the lay ministry has an extremely limited role in the bedroom of other folks or advise liberal measures, such as doing whatever works best for the couple involved. If marriage counseling is clearly needed, a referral may be made by the bishop to the LDS Social Services or to an LDS therapist, who can give professional advice with an empathy for the doctrinal requirements. In sharp contrast, other bishops respond with an injunction to leave the fellowship if someone has premarital intercourse, commits adultery, or engages in homosexual relations, all of which are forbidden by church doctrine.

[Comment 1997: Problems that result from limited sexuality education coupled with well intentioned but poorly trained lay clergy are compounded for Mormons by a dearth of LDS therapists and other mental-health professionals who have specific training and experience in the area of sexuality. (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

Divorce is discouraged, but not uncommon. The divorce rate in the state of Utah, in spite of a predominantly LDS population, matches those of many states. Even marriages sealed in the temple are now relatively easy to unseal. Remarriage from a doctrinal standpoint is difficult to comprehend in light of the eternal marriage concept, but temple divorces will officially separate the couple for the purposes of the Celestial Kingdom.

[Comment 1997: If a temple divorce has been granted, a second marriage can be sealed in a Mormon temple. Marriages that take place outside of the temple are officially recognized by the church as legal and valid, with the understanding that these unions will not carry on into the eternities. (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

The Mormon Family. An ideal Mormon family works together, putting the sense of “family” first, honoring the doctrine that families will endure throughout eternity. It is a rare LDS home that lacks some visible reminder of this doctrine in an embroidered or otherwise handcrafted item proclaiming, “Families are Forever.” The cultural value placed on family as a priority distinctly impacts those who choose not to have children, making those couples at least the object of social curiosity, if not censure.

Utah, the Mormon Mecca, is culturally oriented toward family because of the LDS church influence. Exemplifying this is Enid Waldholtz, the Republican congresswoman elected to office in 1994 from Utah, who is only the second member of Congress to bear a child while in office. This choice on the part of LDS Congresswoman Waldholtz clearly cemented her popularity among her Mormon constituents. She made a clear statement about her support for family life by meeting one of the most basic expectations of a Mormon couple with this childbirth.

Sex Education. Children are taught about sexuality more by implicit measures than direct and overt messages. Sexual exploration at a very early age is treated with quiet but firm repression. Mormon adults often describe their sense of guilt at their developing sexuality, often beginning at a very early age. These ideas are often disseminated by parents during “morality lessons,” which might include the suggestion of singing hymns if “impure thoughts” enter one’s mind, or using affirmative reminders that one’s primary objective is to reach the Celestial Kingdom, which demands the purity of the body temple. “Impure thoughts” are usually not specifically defined, but are so pervasively assumed to be sexually related that many Mormon adults still claim to equate words such as “purity” and “morality” with specific sexual connotations.

In spite of the importance placed on having babies in a married state, very little formal education is done regarding sexuality and pregnancy. Countless times after I have made a simple junior- or high-school presentation on HIV prevention, students have lined up to ask me other “related” questions, often regarding basic body functioning, for example, “I haven’t started my period. . . . How do I know if I’m pregnant? . . . Can I get pregnant from kissing?”

[Comment 1997: Mormon families are counseled by their leaders to hold a weekly Family Home Evening each Monday night. This is a specially designated time during the week for the family to join together to study religious topics, enjoy activities outside of the home, or address important family issues. Family Home Evening, as it has been outlined, provides LDS families with a perfect opportunity to provide sexuality education in the home within the framework of the family’s own value system. After observing this practice among Mormon families, Dr. Ruth Westheimer and her colleague Louis Lieberman noted:

In particular, we have been impressed by the manner in which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) has approached the difficult task of teaching moral and ethical precepts in the area of sexuality. If Jews, Italians, Chinese, and Japanese, among other groups, may be said to be child-centered societies, the Mormons must be said to be family-centered, par excellence. There appears to be a structured, systematic, integrated and total approach to morality through the family. Thus, sexual morality is taught as part of a system and way of life that focuses on the goal of eternal or celestial marriage. The church reaches out to the family through many media: songs, family meetings, family resource books, television, videos, etc., to provide the Mormon perspective on all aspects of sexuality for all family members. (Westheimer & Lieberman 1988, 109)

[Unfortunately, all too often, Mormon families fail to take advantage of this valuable resource, and miss an obvious opportunity to educate their children about matters related to human sexuality. (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

Many couples marry with limited information even about the act of intercourse. If they have been properly parented in the faith, they will have been protected from exposure to sexual or “perverted” images. A Mormon church leader, Dallin Oakes, in a speech at Brigham Young University, said “We are surrounded by the promotional literature of illicit sexual relations on the printed page and on the screen. For your own good, avoid it.” He added, “Pornographic or erotic stories and pictures are worse than filthy or polluted food. The body has defenses to rid itself of unwholesome food, but the brain won’t vomit back filth.”

Biological information about menstruation is disseminated clinically. Some women recall this clinical information as imbued with a sense of shame, in which menstruation is described as a sickness or something one does not discuss in polite company. For example, I dated a Mormon man who was so unfamiliar with menstrual issues and women’s bodies—in spite of having several sisters—that he did not know what the purpose of a tampon was or how it functioned.

Abortion. Abortion is considered a most venal sin. Since Mormon doctrine regards the bearing of children as an opportunity to bring “spirit” children into an earthly form, abortion is not only considered murder, but in addition, a denial of a body for a predestined soul.

Gay Culture. Both the San Francisco and New York gay cultures take special note of the Brigham Young University gay underground, famous for its size and covert scope. Many of the returning missionaries come back to BYU to find a mate and resolve the same-sex desires often stirred on the two-year LDS mission strongly encouraged by the Church with strictly enforced male-only companionship.* Sometimes that resolution does not come easily. Support groups for Mormon homosexuals in the Provo and Salt Lake area around BYU give voice to the pain of these men. Lesbians face the same dilemma, since they are surrounded by the cultural pressure to marry and have families.

[*A note on LDS missionary services: Mormon men are strongly encouraged (not required) to serve a two-year mission at the age of 19. Formal sanctions are not imposed on those males who choose not to go on a mission. However, in a strong Mormon family or LDS community, social sanctions can be quite severe. The status of “Returned Missionary” is a valuable asset to a young man’s marriage potential. In contrast, the decision not to serve a mission—or worse yet, leaving on a mission and returning home early—often brings shame to both the young man and his family. Mormon women, on the other hand, can choose to go on an 18-month mission at the age of 21. However, the expectation of service is not nearly as great for females as it is for males, and the decision not to go, particularly if a young woman opts to get married instead, results in few, if any, negative repercussions. (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

The divine mandate of heterosexual marriage regards homosexuality as a repudiation of the gift and giver of life. Thus, homosexuality is regarded as a direct violation of God’s plan, which is that men should cleave to women. Sexual relations between any nonmarried persons is considered sinful and homosexuality falls into this category. According to Dallin Oaks, one of the church apostles, “Eternal laws that pertain to chastity before marriage and personal purity within marriage apply to all sexual behavior. However, marriage is not doctrinal therapy for homosexual relationships” (Ludlow 1992). Since so much of the restored gospel hinges upon the legally and temple-wedded heterosexual couple, practicing homosexuals are excommunicated.

Often the feelings of a gay person meet responses of incredulity on the part of parents and church leaders. One parent counseled his son not to act on his “supposed” same-gender feelings, “to date young women seriously, to wait and see” (Schow et al. 1991). Because homosexual couples cannot reproduce, this parent urged his son to “choose otherwise.” The church offers “counseling to those who are troubled by homosexual thoughts and actions” in order that they might become acceptable to God. Repentance is offered in these circumstances. “Homosexuality and like practices are deep sins; they can be cured; they can be forgiven” (Church News 1978). In order to remain a Mormon in good standing, homosexuals must remain celibate and refrain from all same-gender eroticism. Acceptance is not advocated at any level.

[Comment 1997: The current Mormon position on homosexuality can be described as one of limited tolerance. Because sexual activity is reserved for marriage, and same-sex relationships are not recognized by most legal bodies or by the church, homosexual activity is therefore forbidden. As the author correctly notes, to continue to be a Mormon in good standing, homosexual men and women must remain celibate and refrain from all same-sex sexual activity. The church’s position officially allows for individuals who are sexually attracted to members of the same gender to remain fully involved in church activities, so long as there is no sexual activity. This stance, though still extremely restrictive, is quite a departure from past policy and practice when virtually any indication of same-sex attraction could be used as grounds for excommunication. However, despite the apparent shift in thinking toward greater acceptance, it remains difficult, if not impossible, for members who feel a same-sex attraction to continue to actively practice Mormonism. Unfortunately, homophobia is often a more-powerful emotion for many church members than the New Testament challenge to “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Frequently, this homophobia is internalized and, despite Ludlow’s declaration that “marriage is not doctrinal therapy for homosexual relationships,” many gay, lesbian, and bisexual Mormons follow the traditional course that has been set for them by getting married and starting a family. Some carry on with a heterosexual life and take the secret of homosexuality to the grave. Others find their true sexual feelings too powerful to deny and may have clandestine same-sex relationships or seek out friendly advice, often from a bishop or other church authority. For those who acknowledge same-sex attraction, reparative or reorientation therapy is a common recommendation. These programs have demonstrated little lasting success in changing sexual orientation. Participation in reparative or reorientation therapy is often exper ienced as the ultimate failure, since the promise of change is directly linked to the sincerity and worthiness of one’s efforts.

[Change-orientated therapy, therefore, is commonly the final step for many gay, lesbian, and bisexual Mormons before leaving the church or being asked to leave. In the end, homosexual Mormons are often left with a choice between their church and their sexuality. Because the two are diametrically opposed, there is little room for compromise. (End of comment by M. O. Bigler)]

Summary. The Mormon culture is distinct in many ways. Known for hard work, loyal families, and abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, the Mormons are steadfast in their maintenance of traditional family values. Sexually conservative and repressive, Mormon doctrines may be the ideal for people disillusioned with or anxious about the liberalization of sexual attitudes and practices occurring in the United States in recent decades. According to the 1995 United States census, Utah—with a 70% Mormon population—ranks first in fertility and last in teen pregnancy. The Mormons, long considered remarkable for their nearly anachronistic traditional values, may actually be on the cutting edge of the Christian Right’s abstinence- and morality-based vision of American family life.

[Spirituality-Sexuality Movements

LORAINE HUTCHINS

[Editors’ Note: The basic sexological premises that underlie American sexual attitudes, values, and behavior are derived from the 2,000-year-old Greco-Roman philosophies of the Stoics, Zoroastrians, Platonic and Neoplatonic dualists, and many popular Gnostics. If anything can be said about these philosophies, which the early Christians adopted, it is that they were and are clearly anti-pleasure, anti-sex and anti-woman. This is radically true of all Euro-American cultures, but especially true of American culture, because of the sex-negative values the poorer immigrants and Puritans brought with them to the colonies. With its ongoing incarnational mission, Christianity should have, but did not develop a sex-positive integration of sex and spirit. One consequence of the resulting pervasive religious repression of sex that emerged early in the sexual revolution of the 1960s was the development of grassroots, at times spontaneous-combustion efforts to rejoin and integrate sexuality and spirituality. Factors in this phenomenon include the flowering of women’s liberation, the advent of the “pill,” the breakdown of religious and social condemnations of premarital sex, gay/lesbian/bi/trans liberation, and a growing interest in the more sex-and-pleasure-positive philosophies of Taoism and Tantra (Francoeur 1992).]

[Update 2003: We could say the impulse to integrate sexuality and spirituality is at the erotic core of creation. The need to reintegrate them began when the customs of people who revered the Earth were smashed apart by dominators.

[Seeds to the emerging spirituality-sexuality movement are found in the ancient Eastern ways of Taoism and Tantra and the sexual liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s. By the 1980s, the teachings of Baghwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho) (1977) and his many students, such as Margo Anand (1991), gave new life to practices that would heal the split between sexuality and spirituality. It is no coincidence that this erotic-spiritual awakening bloomed in the face of AIDS. The increasing visibility and leadership of women and sexual minorities also profoundly changed the face of this movement to reintegrate sex and spirit. Among the more visible are sexologists Annie Sprinkle and Joseph Kramer, who teach sacred erotic massage and sacred intimacy mentoring in ways that bridge the gaps between women and men, gays and straights. In 1997, Deborah Taj Anapol convened a national Celebration of Eros, a Conference on Sacred Sexuality, bringing together for the first time, teachers from Tantric, Taoist, Sufi, Buddhist, Jewish, Pagan, Wiccan, Occult, Native American, and Afro-Caribbean traditions. The blossoming of groups and training programs continues to grow every year.

[The U.S. spirituality-sexuality movement sparks most intensely in retreat centers and gathering places, such as Shalom Mountain (Livingston Manor, NY), Omega Institute (Rhinebeck, NY), Harbin Hot Springs (Middletown, CA), Wildwood (Guerneville, CA), Kirkridge (Bangor, PA), Burning Man (Black Rock City, NV), the Body Sacred (Livingston Manor, NY), Esalen (Big Sur, CA), Dawn Manor (Livingston Manor), Short Mountain (Radical Faery Center, Liberty, TN), Ramblewood (Darlington, MD), Sacred Connections (various locations in CA), and American Ridge (a campsite outside Seattle, WA). Integration of different views and approaches occurs in state parks at summer festivals, in the special temple rooms of sex-workers redefining their own erotic ministries, in covens meeting down side roads, in church halls, on shores, and in meadows.

[Among the more influential resources are the following—listed alphabetically: Margo Anand’s The Art of Sexual Ecstasy: The Path of Sacred Sexuality for Western Lovers; Bodhi Avinasha and Sunyata Sarasswati’s The Jewel and the Lotus: The Tantric Path to Higher Consciousness; Georg Fuerstein’s Enlightened Sexuality: Essays on Body-Positive Spirituality; Donald Kraig’s Sex Magick: Sacred Erotic Spirituality; Miranda Shaw’s Passionate Enlightenment: Women in Tantric Buddhism; and Kenneth Ray Stubbs’ Women of the Light: The New Sacred Prostitute. Jenny Wade’s Transcendent Sex presents ordinary women’s and men’s accounts of transcendent sex experiences (without drugs and Tantra) connecting heart, genitals, soul, and spirit. Each of these practitioners/teachers represents a different aspect of the emerging “sacred sexualities” movement in the U.S. The Quodoshka website, http://www.spiritualsexuality.com, is maintained by teachers trained by Harley Swift Deer and presents a very influential strain not represented in the books listed here.

[The network of modern spirituality-sexuality integration is being created at all these places, through the stories participants tell, the practices taught privately, on websites, and in chat groups. Knowledge of this reintegration lives in the doing and in being. Every time we use our spines as breath-flutes, all our organs are instruments of praise. We are just beginning to create communities that reclaim and celebrate these ancient ways of healing the broken vessel of our world, of teaching each other how to reweave the roots and impulses that make us whole. (End of update by L. Hutchins)]

B. Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Perspectives

In addition to the religious factor, two other social factors continue to exert considerable influence on American sexual ideologies and practices, race/ethnicity and gender. In this section, we examine the sexual customs of two of the largest racial and ethnic minority groups in the U.S.A., African-Americans and Latino-Americans, followed by a look at Native Americans. Next, we examine the effects of feminism and feminist perspectives on sexuality in America and sexological research, and the emerging perspectives of men on these issues. Finally, we look at the concept of heterophobia.

African-American Sexuality

HERBERT SAMUELS

The term African-American is widely and often carelessly used to suggest or imply that the more than 30 million African-Americans constitute some kind of homogeneous community or culture. This is both contrary to reality and dangerous, as the term properly includes a rich diversity of very different, and often distinct subcultures, each with its own set of sexual values, attitudes, and behavioral patterns. Included under the rainbow umbrella of African-Americans are urban African-Americans in the northeast, ranging from Boston south to Washington, D.C., African-Americans in Los Angeles on the West Coast, and African-Americans in urban centers in the southern states. Rural African-Americans are often quite different from  urban African-Americans, even in nearby metropolitan centers. Socioeconomic and educational differences   add to the diversity of African-American subcultures. This perspective is essential to avoid overgeneralizations about the observations provided here.

Historical Perspective. A review of the past record reveals that many white Americans have regarded the majority of African-Americans as representing the sexual instinct in its raw state. This belief that African-American sexual behavior is somehow more sordid and crude than the sexual behavior of white Americans is by no means a new concept. Reports dating from the mid-16th century depict the sexual behavior of Africans as bestial. The same descriptions were later applied to the Africans brought to the New World by the slave trade.

Moreover, the folk view of the sexuality of blacks is often hard to distinguish from what appears in the scientific literature. In the guise of science, some investigators have presented such conclusions as: 1. African-American men and women are guided by “bestial instinct” (DeRachewiltz 1964; Jacobus 1937; Purchas 1905); 2. the black man is more animalistic in bed (DeRachewiltz 1964; Jacobus 1937; Purchas 1905); 3. the black man’s penis is larger than the penis of the white man (DeRachewiltz 1964; Edwardes & Masters 1963; Jacobus 1937); 4. the black man is a sexual superman whose potency and virility is greater than the white man’s (DeRachewiltz 1964; Jacobus 1937; Jefferson 1954); 5. the black man’s reproductive capacity is colossal (Jacobus 1937); 6. black men are obsessed with the idea of having sex with white women (Edwardes & Masters 1963; Fanon 1967); 7. all black women want to sleep with anyone who comes along (DeRachewiltz 1964; Jacobus 1937; Rogers 1967); and 8. black women respond instantly and enthusiastically to all sexual advances (DeRachewiltz 1964; Jacobus 1937). Blacks have also been characterized as holding more-permissive attitudes regarding extramarital affairs (Bell 1968; Christensen & Johnson 1978; Houston 1981; Reiss 1964, 1967; Roebuck & McGee 1977; Staples 1978). This simplistic notion may well misrepresent the complexity of African-American sexual values. According to Robert Staples (1986, 258),

Blacks have traditionally had a more naturalistic attitude toward human sexuality, seeing it as the normal expression of sexual attraction between men and women. Even in African societies, sexual conduct was not the result of some divine guidance by God or other deities. It was secularly regulated and encompassed the tolerance of a wide range of sexual attitudes and behaviors. Sexual deviance, where so defined, was not an act against God’s will but a violation of community standards.

Gender, Gender Role, Sex, Love, and Marriage. Gender and gender roles are culturally defined constructs that determine the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior for men and women. These notions are often based on stereotypes—a fixed, oversimplified, and extremely distorted idea about a group of people. In the general American culture, the traditional stereotyped female is gentle, kind, dependent, passive, and submissive. The traditional stereotyped male is tough, brutal, independent, aggressive, and intractable. Any deviation from one’s expected gender role may be met with skepticism about one’s psychological health. For example, the traditional view of the black male—as it relates to gender-role identification—is that he has been emasculated by the experience of slavery and is suffering from gender-identity problems because of absent or inadequate male role models. Moreover, because of these two problems, he has a more-feminine gender identity than white males (Grier & Cobbs 1968; Glazer & Moynihan 1964; Pettigrew 1964; Wilkinson & Taylor 1977). Grier and Cobbs (1968, 59) suggest that:

For the black man in this country, it is not so much a matter of acquiring manhood as it is a struggle to feel it is his own. Whereas the white man regards his manhood as an ordained right, the black man is engaged in a never ending battle for its possession. For the black man, attaining any portion of manhood is an active process. He must penetrate barriers and overcome opposition in order to assume a masculine posture. For the innermost psychological obstacles to manhood are never so formidable as the impediments woven into American society.

Pettigrew (1964) supported the notion that black males are more feminine than white males because of certain responses to items in the masculinity-femininity scale on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Two items that Pettigrew noted were the statements, “I would like to be a singer” and “I think I feel more intensely than most people do.” Black males responded more positively to these statements than did white males. This pattern was interpreted to mean that black males are more feminine than white males. Pettigrew based his conclusion regarding the black male’s gender identity on two studies. One study included a sample of Alabama convicts; the other was a group of veterans with tuberculosis! As Pleck (1981) notes, these are hardly representative samples.

In contrast to the emasculated, feminine, black male hypothesis, Hershey (1978) argues that black males have a stronger masculine identity than white males. In her study of sex-role identities and sex-role stereotyping, the black men’s mean masculinity score was significantly higher than the mean masculinity score of the white men in her sample.

To the extent that African-American males have been emasculated by gender-role stereotyping, African-American females have been defeminized by gender-role stereotyping. The so-called black matriarchy has been historically blamed for the deterioration of the black family, because black women have greater participation in family decision making in a society where male control is the “normal rule.” Because white stereotyped norms are violated, African-American women are seen as being domineering. By virtue of the historical legacy of slavery and discrimination against African-American men, African-American women were in the labor market, received education, and supported their families.

According to Staples,

Sex relations have a different nature and meaning to black people. Their sexual expression derives from the emphasis in the black culture on feeling, of releasing the natural functions of the body without artificiality or mechanical movements. In some circles this is called “soul” and may be found among peoples of African descent throughout the world. (Cited by Francoeur 1991, 90-92)

In a practical sense, this means that black men do not moderate their enthusiasm for sex relations as white men do. They do not have a history of suppressing the sexual expression of the majority of their women while singling out a segment of the female population for premarital and extramarital adventures (Staples 1977, 141-42).

The major problem with such studies is that few have questioned the stereotyped assumptions regarding gender-role socialization upon which their conclusions are based.

Views and Practices of Sex Education. Black males and females are socialized very early into heterosexual relations by their culture and extended-family system. The less-stringent age and gender-role orientations that are evident in the black community exposes children at an early age to a more permissive sexual ethos. Many African-Americans perceive sex as a natural function; thus, children are not hidden from discussions of a sexual nature.

Academically, many sexuality or family life education programs employ the Health Belief Model, not only as a way to predict sexual behavior, but to facilitate behavior change. This model has certain assumptions that are based on Euro-American social norms. These norms may not be consistent with the beliefs and values of many African-Americans. Mays and Cochran (1990) correctly maintain that such attitude-behavior models

assume that people are motivated to pursue rational courses of action. They further assume that people have the resources necessary to proceed directly with these rational decisions. . . . Black Americans confront an environment in which much of their surrounding milieu is beyond their personal control. Models of human behavior that emphasize individualistic, direct, and rational behavioral decisions overlook the fact that many blacks do not have personal control over traditional categories of resources—for example, money, education, and mobility.

For many African-Americans, educational models that place emphasis on social norms and the extent of commitment to social responsibilities, rather than those that value individualistic rational reasoning, may be better predictors of future behavior.

Masturbation. Most studies indicate that African-American men and women masturbate less than do white men and women. In a recent national study, The Social Organization of Sexuality (Laumann et al. 1994), one third of white men and 56% of white women reported that they had not masturbated at all in the past year. However, black men were almost twice as likely to report that they had not masturbated at all during the past year, and about 68% of black women reported that they did not masturbate in the past year. However, those African-Americans who do masturbate demonstrate the same childhood, adolescent, and adult patterns as their white counterparts. Blacks may not acknowledge that they masturbate as readily as whites, because of the belief that admitting that one masturbates means one is unable to find a sex partner.

Children and Sex. African-American children, according to Staples (1972), are socialized very early into heterosexual relations by their culture and extended-family system. This socialization pattern exposes them at an early age to a more permissive sexual ethos. Thus, African-American children may have a knowledge of sexual intercourse, masturbation, condom usage, and other sexual practices at a younger age.

Adolescents and Sex. Compared to white teenagers, African-American teenagers begin coitus about two years earlier, on the average, and are more likely to progress directly from light petting to sexual intercourse (Brooks-Gunn & Furstenburg 1989). Consequently, African-American females may be at greater risk of pregnancy.

Black men start dating earlier, are more likely to have a romantic involvement in high school, have the most liberal sexual attitudes, and are most inclined to have nonmarital sex without commitment (Broderick 1965; Larson et al. 1976; Johnson & Johnson 1978). (See Section 5B for additional data comparing black and white adolescent sexual patterns.)

Adults. In the aftermath of the Civil War, blacks married in record numbers because, under the inhumane institution of slavery, legal marriage had been denied to them. Three out of four black adults were living in intact nuclear families by the early part of the 20th century, and the overwhelming majority of black children were born to parents who were legally married. Today, an African-American child has but a one-in-five chance of being raised by two parents (Chideya et al. 1993). Out-of-wedlock births have risen since the 1960s, particularly among African-Americans. Two out of three first births to African-American women under the age of 35 are now out of wedlock.

Traditionally, women in American society have tended to marry men in their own social class or to “marry up” to a higher socioeconomic group. This pattern has been substantially disrupted among African-Americans, largely because of a distorted gender ratio among blacks. This imbalance in the proportion of males and females of marriageable age has been present for several decades, but has become exacerbated in recent years. By the 1990s, there were roughly 50 adult African-American women for every 42 African-American men, largely because of abnormally high rates of black-male mortality and incarceration (Staples & Johnson 1993). Because the proportion of African-American women who attend college and earn degrees is much higher than the rate for men, this problem is even more severe for higher-status women. As a result, increasing numbers of black women are remaining single or marrying partners from lower-status groups (i.e., less education and/or income). There is no evidence that large groups of black women are choosing to marry outside their race (Staples & Johnson 1993).

Joseph Scott (1976) has argued that these social conditions are largely responsible for the emergence of a pattern he calls “mansharing.” Mansharing is a lifestyle where a number of African-American women, each of whom typically maintains her own separate residence, “share” a man for intimate relationships. Typically, he splits time living with each of the women. Scott (1976) argued that mansharing represented the appearance of a new, polygamous family form in the African-American community. However, we want to stress that this does not mean that black women like or prefer this lifestyle. Cazenave (1979) has noted that lifestyles can sometimes be imposed by external social constraints. There is some evidence (Allen & Agbasegbe 1980) that most black women do not approve of mansharing as a lifestyle, but feel they have reduced options in an environment with few eligible male partners. Scott concluded that:

Until there is some way to correct the sex ratio imbalance and until blacks control the economic and welfare institutions in such a way to stop the breaking up of black monogamous relationships we cannot be too harsh on black men and women who find some satisfactory adjustments in sharing themselves and their economic resources in a new, at least for this society, family form which meets their most basic needs. (Scott 1976, 80)

Homosexuality and Bisexuality. Attitudes within the African-American community reflect those in the majority culture. According to Staples (1981), homosexuality may be tolerated in the black community but will not be approved openly. Bell and Weinberg (1978), in their study of homosexuality, found that black male homosexuals tended to be younger than their white counterparts, had less education, and were employed at a lower occupational level. Moreover, black male gays more often expressed the belief that their homosexuality and homosexual contacts had helped more than hurt their careers.

Compared to black gay males, black lesbians had fewer transient sexual partners. Most reported that the majority of their sexual encounters were with women for whom they cared emotionally.

Coercive Sex and Pornography. The incidence of rape among African-Americans has been subject to some controversy. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 683,000 adult women were raped in 1990. By contrast, the National Victim Center estimated that there were 130,236 rapes in 1990 and 207,610 in 1991. Although earlier reports indicated that African-American women were more likely to be sexually assaulted than white women, newer studies do not find any statistically significant difference between African-American and white samples. The historical notion that most rapists are black men is totally without merit; indeed, most rapists and their victims are members of the same race or ethnic group.

There is an important difference between the attitudes of those whites who support the antipornography movement in the United States and the lack of interest this issue stirs among African-Americans. For African-Americans, as Robert Staples (1986, 258) argues, issues of poverty, education, job opportunities, and teenage pregnancy are far more pressing concerns than the crusade against pornography.

Rather than seeing the depiction of heterosexual intercourse or nudity as an inherent debasement of women as a fringe group as [white religious conservatives and] feminists claim, the black community would see women as having equal rights to the enjoyment of sexual stimuli. It is nothing more than a continuation of the white male’s traditional double standard and paternalism to regard erotica as existing only for male pleasure and women only as sexual objects. Since that double standard has never attracted many American blacks, the claim that women are exploited by exhibiting their nude bodies or engaging in heterosexual intercourse lacks credibility. After all, it was the white missionaries who forced African women to regard their quasi-nude bodies as sinful and placed them in clothes. This probably accounts for the rather conspicuous absence of black women in the feminist fight against porn.

Contraception and Abortion. Since the early 1970s, many in the African-American community have viewed contraceptive use as a form of genocide advocated by whites. Thus, control over reproduction has had political and social implications.

The majority of women having abortions are white. Although 12% of the population is of African-American ancestry, black women constitute approximately 31% of the women who seek abortions. There is a history of forced sterilization against African-Americans, which many perceive as a form of genocide similar to contraception.

STDs and HIV/AIDS. In 1932, the United States Public Health Service recruited 600 African-American men from Tuskegee, Alabama, to participate in an experiment involving untreated syphilis. The aim of this study was to determine if there were any racial differences in the development of syphilis. The Tuskegee participants were never informed that they had syphilis. This wanton disregard for human life allowed the disease to spread to the sexual partners of these men, as well as their offspring. This experiment continued until 1972! The repercussions from the “Tuskegee Experiment” still resonate strongly through African-American communities, and have a negative impact on HIV/AIDS prevention programs.

HIV was the eighth-leading cause of death for all Americans in 1990, but it was the sixth-leading cause of death for African-Americans. It is the leading cause of death for African-American men between the ages of 35 and 44, and the second-leading cause of death for black men and women between 25 and 35. Again this raises the specter of genocide among many members of the African-American community, in that many believe that the virus was man-made!

[Update 2003: The HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to be a major health crisis facing the African-American community. Although African-Americans make up only about 12% of the U.S. population, they accounted for half of the new HIV infections reported in the United States in 2001. And many new infections occur among young African-Americans. According to the CDC:

[(CDC 2001; Lee & Fleming 2001; Valleroy 1998, 2000). (See discussion of “Brothers on the Down Low” in Section 6B, Homoerotic, Homosexual, and Bisexual Behaviors, Adults, Health Issues). (End of update by H. Samuels)]

Sexual Dysfunction. The stereotyped notions about the sexual experiences of African-Americans not only influence the attitudes that whites may have about African-Americans, but also affect the way in which African-Americans perceive themselves. For example, the willingness of an African-American male who is experiencing difficulty in maintaining an erection or ejaculatory control to seek help may be dependent on how closely he identifies with the myth of the “super potent” black man. Any man may feel embarrassment about a sexual problem, but for the African-American male, the embarrassment that he may feel is compounded by the images of the myth.

For clinicians, an awareness of this historical legacy is essential to the treatment process. A key component in the treatment of many sexual problems is the use of self-pleasuring exercises. These exercises are an effective method for a person to learn more about his or her own sex responses. Many African-Americans have negative feelings about masturbation that may infringe on the treatment process. First, changing these negative feelings may take more time than is typical for other clients. Second, African-Americans who do masturbate may be more reluctant to discuss this issue because, for many, admitting that they masturbate indicates that they cannot find a sexual partner.

[The Interaction of Gender and Race

PATRICIA BARTHALOW KOCH

[Update 1998: Sexuality and African-American Women. Gender and race have traditionally been defined and operationalized as fixed biological categories into which people could neatly be sorted. However, many scholars now consider gender and race as social constructions, based on social and political influences, rather than on biological characteristics (Irvine 1995; Simon 1996). Additionally, many research studies have confounded socioeconomic status with race. Shortcomings often encountered in sexuality research include the lack of historical context, cultural insensitivity, and generalizations or assumptions about gender (Burgess 1994). Various aspects of African-American women’s sexuality are quintessential examples of the salience and interaction of gender and race upon sexuality in the United States. African-American women’s sexual attitudes, values, behaviors, and relationships have been shaped by their gender and racial heritage, including the historical experience of slavery and continued marginalization in American society (Staples & Johnson 1993).

[To the extent that African-American males have been “emasculated” by gender-role stereotyping, as described by Samuels above, African-American females have often been “defeminized” by this same process. By virtue of the historical legacy of slavery and continuing discrimination against African-American men in the labor force and other aspects of “mainstream” American society, e.g., housing and education, African-American women have always needed to be in the labor force to support their families (Anderson 1996). This economic necessity has contributed to the myth of the “black matriarchy,” which has then been blamed for the deterioration of the black family. African-American women have been described as domineering authoritarians who drive away their husbands and destroy their sons’ ability to perform effectively as productive adults. These “castrating matriarchs” and “lazy black men” have been chided as the “cause” of poverty among African-American families, avoiding any search for causes in a political and economic system that provided African-Americans with few opportunities to successfully support intact families (Anderson 1996; Staples & Johnson 1993).

[In essence, there tends to be more-egalitarian gender roles and fluidity among African-Americans than among Anglo-Americans (Broman 1991; Farley & Allen 1987). White stereotypic norms seem to be violated when black women have greater participation in family decision-making than has been present within a dominant Anglo society where male control is more the “rule.” Therefore, according to Burgess (1994), African-American women are seen as domineering. African-American women have most often been portrayed in some combination of four primary images: 1. as highly maternal, family-oriented, and self-sacrificing “Mammies” or “Aunt Jemimas”; 2. as threatening and argumentative “Sapphires”; 3. as seductive, sexually irresponsible, promiscuous “Jezebels”; and 4. as ignorant, lazy, greedy, breeding “Welfare Mothers” (Collins 1990; Weitz 1993; West 1995).

[In reality, African-American women must play dual roles. They are pressured to be more androgynous or masculine in order to make it in the work world, since they are often more successful at gaining employment than are African-American men. Yet, they also often try to maintain traditional female gender roles, especially that of mothering, to sustain relationships within their domestic networks (Binion 1990). As a hedge against failure, poor black men may limit their affective and economic commitments to family, approaching marriage and fatherhood ambivalently (Anderson 1996). Black women often want to be supportive of their men, yet sometimes find the men’s behavior to be distancing, oppressive, or abusive (Lorde 1984). Lorde has noted that female-headed households in the black community do not always occur by default. She and others contend that black women are less likely to accept oppressive conditions in their marriages than white women, and, therefore, are much more likely to leave abusive unions with males. African-American women often develop matrifocal kin networks in which female family members, e.g., grandmothers and aunts, share the family and childcare responsibilities. Compared to their Anglo-American counterparts, African-American women are less likely to marry, more likely to be divorced or separated, and less likely to remarry (Anderson 1990).

[Regarding specific sexual behaviors, black men and women appear to engage in cunnilingus and fellatio less often than their white peers (Belcastro 1985; Hunt 1974; Laumann et al. 1994). A lack of foreplay is a grievance often expressed by married black women (Staples 1981), although black women report a higher frequency of intercourse per week than white women (Fisher 1980). Concerning such differences, Staples (1972, 9) suggests that:

Unlike many white women who see sexual relations as primarily an activity designed to give men pleasure, black women expect their sexual partners to try and sexually satisfy them, and criticize him if he doesn’t. Sex is not necessarily something that is done to them. . . . Also in contrast to many white women, the black woman tends to be open within the peer group about her sexual experiences. . . . [This] allows black women to develop standards of sexual conduct to which males must address themselves.

[Rape and sexual assault have a unique history for African-American women because of the sexual exploitation of slaves for over 250 years before the American Civil War (Getman 1984). Throughout America’s history, sexual assault on African-American women has been perceived and treated with less concern than for Anglo-American women (Wyatt 1992). For example, by 1660 in the American South, there were laws supporting sex between black women and white men in order to insure that interracial children would be slaves owned by the white slave masters. However, sex between a black man and white woman was severely punished with the alleged black “assailant” being castrated or sentenced to death, usually by lynching. Yet, there were no penalties for the rape of black women by white men. The stereotype that black women are “oversexed” by nature and, thus, cannot be rape victims, still exists in America today (Getman 1984). When both a rape victim and defendant are black, there is less likelihood of conviction compared to both victim and defendant being white (LaFree, Ruskin, & Visher 1985). Because of this and discriminatory police practices toward other crimes in the black community, black victims may feel less support and are, therefore, less likely to report being raped (Wyatt, Newcomb, & Notgrass 1990). Hooks (1990) has emphasized that sexism and racism are “interlocking systems of domination that maintain each other.” (End of update by P. B. Koch)]

U.S. Latinos and Sexual Health

MIGUEL A. PÉREZ and HELDA L. PINZÓN-PÉREZ [Rewritten and updated in
September 2002 by M. A. Pérez and H. L. Pinzón-Pérez]

[Demographics. Latinos* in the United States are a heterogeneous group comprised of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Central Americans, and South Americans. Like most other ethnic/racial groups residing in the United States, Latinos exist in a distinct social environment, have developed a unique culture, and are often disfranchised from mainstream society. The heterogeneity of the Latino population residing in the U.S. can be observed in each group’s unique culture, beliefs, language, socioeconomic background, family name, racial ascription, and culinary preferences (Castex 1994; Neale 1989; Williams 1989). Further evidence of the heterogeneity can be found in the 2000 U.S. Census, which found that 9 out of 10 Latinos reported racial/ethnic classifications other than Hispanic on the census forms. Two characteristics have been found to unify Latinos in the U.S.: having ancestors in a Latin American country, excluding Brazil, and having one or more family members who speak or were fluent in the Spanish language.

[*The terms “Latino”" and “Hispanic” are used interchangeably in this section to describe a heterogeneous group of people representing a kaleidoscope of experiences, educational attainment, acculturation levels, and citizenship status. The term “Latina” pertains specifically to Hispanic women.

[Latinos are one of, if not the fastest-growing population groups in the U.S. According to census data, in the last decade, the U.S. Latino population growth has been twice that of the general population (U.S. Census Bureau [USCB] 2000). As Table 3 shows, over 12% of the U.S. population is classified as being of Hispanic or Latino descent; this figure is expected to increase to 21% by the year 2050. Although Latinos can be found in almost every state, two states, Texas and California, account for over 50% of all Hispanics in the United States (USCB 2002).

[Several factors have been identified as contributors to this high population growth, among them, high fertility rates, high levels of immigration to the United States, and the relatively young population (Brindis 1992, USCB 2002). Among Latinos, persons of Mexican origin form the largest population group, accounting for approximately 59% of the Latino population in the U.S.; Puerto Ricans place at a distant second, with approximately 10% of the population. The last decade has seen a marked increased in populations from Central and South America, which now account for approximately 3.5% of the total U.S. Latino population (USBC 2002).

[Overall, U.S. Latinos are a relatively young population, with a median age of 25.9 years compared to 35.3 years for non-Latinos. While 26% of non-Latinos are below the age of 18, 35% of Hispanics are found in that age group (USBC 2002). Among U.S. ethnic groups, only Native Americans have a younger population. Table 4 shows the mean age for each of the Latino groups in the U.S. (USCB 2002).

[While the following material describes relevant sexological concepts among Latinos in the U.S., it cannot report all sexual-related knowledge and practices among this rapidly increasing heterogeneous population group. The following paragraphs, however, will highlight relevant sexological issues and hopefully dispel some of the stereotypes related to Latino sexuality. Comparisons presented here represent general data for Latinos; thus, the reader needs to keep in mind that there are differences among first-generation and other-generation Latinos, by age group, by economic level, and by acculturation level. The truth is that the variety of sexual practices and patterns among Latinos in the United States, and for that matter in Latin America, are only surpassed by the limits of human imagination.

[Family Issues. The majority of Latinos in the U.S. do not define their familia (family) in terms of the traditional nuclear-family concept accepted by mainstream America. It is, therefore, not uncommon for Latinos to reside in multigenerational households with members of their extended family (Alberda & Tilly 1992; Garcia 1993). This arrangement permits the division of labor, sharing of economic and domestic responsibilities, and most importantly, allows extended family members to participate in the rearing of children (Kutsche 1983; Leaper-Campbell 1996). The strong identification with the extended family explains the apegamiento (unity) traditionally ascribed to Latinos, highlights an individual’s willingness to place the familia’s need before his or her own, and elucidates the role grandparents, as well as uncles and aunts, play in shaping Latinos’ earlier views on sexuality (Brindis 1997).

[The Latino culture has been erroneously depicted as being patriarchal in nature. This impression, carefully maintained through the male’s role as the family’s representative before society, hides the decision-making role Latinas have in the family unit. In fact, Latinas are the base of the family structure, are the primary caregivers in the home, and have important nonpublic and nonverbal authority within the family (de la Vega 1990). In short, Latinas maintain the equilibrium and smoothness of family relationships. Similarly, realities associated with immigration have increased the number of Latina heads of household who support and maintain their families, in many cases without the direct intervention of any males.

[On the other hand, Latinas in their caregiving role, traditionally tend to pay more attention to the family’s needs than their own. This expectation is most often noted in young women taking care of older relatives, while their male counterparts seek to forge their own future, albeit not too far from the family unit. Furthermore, traditional Latino families may also discourage young Latinas to pursue higher education and, instead, may seek to prepare them for marriage.

[Along with family orientation, Latinos often show the closely related concept of simpatía. The latter refers to Latinos’ willingness to go along with items that may not be understood or that they may disagree with. Szapocznik (1995) has suggested that familism and simpatía may now be liabilities for Latinos in the United States, particularly for gay men who attempt to conceal their true HIV-status from their families and friends.

[Several authors (de la Vega 1990; Lifshitz 1990; Fennelly 1988) have emphasized the importance of recognizing the differences in family and cultural expectations regarding sexual behavior for females and males in the Latino culture. The acknowledgment of these differences assists in the understanding of the complexity of sexuality-related issues within this population group. This is particularly true as we view Latinos in the U.S. through the prism of acculturation.

[Sexological Concepts: Acculturation and Sexual Practices. Among Latinos, sexual matters are considered to be private affairs not to be discussed in public. Therefore, it is not surprising that some Latinos have little understanding of their bodies, the sexual response cycle, and may still view sexuality exclusively within the context of procreation.

[Sexuality is an important life element among Latinos and is as complex as the heterogeneity of the population group. Latino sexuality is not limited or circumscribed to coital activity, but it is rather expressed through a variety of life attitudes which reinforce male and female sexual identities and roles. Sexual tones are evident in music, art, and dress codes, which emphasize the role of sexuality while avoiding offending community etiquette and expectations. Coquetería (to be discussed later) and modestia are opposing forces that characterize a woman’s ability to openly pursue her sexuality while maintaining clearly delineated boundaries. In the United States, sexual patterns are not only affected by culture, but also by the individual’s degree of acculturation and assimilation (Spector 1991).

[Acculturation and education also play a pivotal role in the acceptance of new expressions of sexuality. In a 1990 study, Marín, Marín, and Juárez found that Latinas with higher levels of acculturation reported more multiple sexual partners than those with lower acculturation levels. The same study found that less-acculturated males were more likely to carry condoms and report fewer sexual partners. A follow-up study found that less-acculturated Latinas were less likely to carry condoms and experienced higher levels of sexual discomfort (Marín, Gomez, & Hearst 1993). More-acculturated and educated Latinas are also more likely to adopt a leading role during heterosexual activities. Acculturation notwithstanding, sexuality continues to be a taboo topic for many Latinos, particularly for older, Spanish-speaking Latinos.

[Until the advent of the AIDS epidemic, few researchers had systematically documented sexual practices and knowledge among Latinos. Inappropriate application of methodological tools, language difficulties, and cultural insensitivity have all been identified as barriers to data collection among U.S. Latinos (Ford & Norris 1991). The lack of data about Latinos has been further exacerbated by the lack of identification of Latinos as a specific population group, particularly in large federally funded studies.

[Sexual Stereotypes. It is perhaps significant that general knowledge of Latino sexuality is denoted more by stereotypes than factual information. De la Vega (1990) concluded that numerous myths and stereotypes are found among Latinos, as within any group of individuals. It is important that these subtle cultural forms of differentiation not be missed by North American service providers, as they may be the nuances that allow for the development of educational strategies that will effectively reach the Latino population.

[Perhaps the most widely accepted stereotype for Latino males is that of the proverbially promiscuous “Don Juan.” This eternally charming individual is known for his ability to sexually conquer and satisfy a large number of females. “Don Juan” characterizes the expectation that Latino men acquire sexual knowledge as a result of their early onset of sexual activity (Blasini-Caceres & Cook 1997).

[A second stereotype deals with the submissive, passive, and docile feminine nature of Latinas in sexuality matters. Traditional cultural expectations dictate that a woman refrain from sexual activity until marriage, thereby, limiting her ability to acquire knowledge. The submissive nature of Latinas is highly contrasted with the expectation that they be erotic, creative, and pleasing in sexuality-related matters. This dichotomy is evident in the seemingly contradicting popular advice provided to young Latinas by elder relatives that they need to be a “señora en la casa, una dama en la mesa, y una puta en la cama” (a lady in the house and a whore in bed).

[A third stereotype among Latino males is that they are always ready and willing to engage in sexual activity. This stereotype may lead to the conclusion that, on the whole, Latino males are more likely to force their sexual needs on unwilling partners. This stereotype does not seem to be supported in the professional literature. Finally, anecdotal and empirical evidence seem to suggest differing expectations based on acculturation levels. In fact, more-conservative norms may be found among more-educated Latinos.

[Gender and Gender Roles. Worth and Rodriguez (1987) reported that despite the fact some Latinos in the United States have nontraditional lifestyles, they continue to adhere to traditional gender roles. Fennelly (1992) reported on cultural double standards and suggested that, whereas males are encouraged to develop strong self-reliant identities and explore their sexuality, females are taught the value of etiqueta, or proper and expected forms of feminine sexual behavior. These, sometimes-conflicting cultural norms contribute to what has been called the “cult of virginity” (Garcia 1980).

[This “cult of virginity” has its roots in the Catholic Church’s teachings and is seen as a sign of purity for women. The basic premise of virginity until marriage has been found to decrease a number of sexual health problems, such as unplanned pregnancies, and to decrease the number of STDs. The primary problem with this concept, at least as practiced among Latinos, is that it is not applied equally to both genders. The literature suggests that these double standards result in either females postponing sexual activities, underreporting of sexual contacts (Taggart 1992), and in some cases, denial of other sexual behaviors, such as anal sex, which are engaged in to preserve the “cult of virginity” basic premises. This, however, does not prevent sexual innuendo from taking place.

[Coquetería is a term used to describe a group of female behaviors aimed at reinforcing sexual attraction. Some of these behaviors include the use of sexually appealing clothing, the adoption of manners that stimulate sexual attraction, and the use of verbiage that indicate sexual interest. Latinas are not the only ones to discreetly express their sexual or personal interests. Piropos are statements generally expressed by men that include a sexual connotation within the context of respect and value for females. Cultural sexual standards are also denoted in language which arbitrarily classifies females as either suitable for marriage, novias, or those who can be pursued for sexual conquests, amantes (Alexander 1992; Carballo-Diéguez 1989). This dichotomy of sexual and gender roles may explain the reason sexual discussions seldom take place among spouses, since esposas (wives) are expected to possess little knowledge about their own sexuality, and even less about their spouse’s. It has been suggested that, in some cases, the only Latinas totally in charge of their own sexuality are commercial sex workers, as they can be less constricted to express and fully explore their sexuality.

[De la Vega (1990) suggested that sexual double standards are based on the erroneous belief that males are less able than females to control themselves sexually. It is believed that women exercise greater control over their sexual impulses, while males appear to be guided by their instincts. In this context, male infidelity is more easily tolerated than female infidelity. Research indicates that Latinos who have poor sexual communication skills engage in extramarital affairs more often than those who have fewer difficulties communicating with their sexual partners. A 1994 study found that infidelity rates were higher among those who attended church infrequently than regular church attenders (Choi, Catalnia, & Docini 1994).

[Machismo and Marianismo. Machismo has been described as a strong force in most Latino communities, which encourages males to be sexually dominant and the primary providers for their families; it stresses male physical aggression, high risk-taking, breaking rules, and casual, uninvolved sexual relations (de la Vega 1990). In contrast, Marianismo refers to Latino cultural expectations that include the spiritual and moral superiority of women, and encourage Latinas to be virginal, seductive, privately wise, publicly humble, fragile, and yet, provide the glue that holds the family together. It has been argued that while these standards lead to womanizing, they also foster the tenet among males that they are responsible for their family’s welfare. Low education and acculturation have been found to correlate with stronger machismo views among Latinos in the U.S.

[Sexual Education. The AIDS epidemic has spearheaded an emphasis on the need to investigate sexuality education and communication patterns among Latinos in the United States. Family bonds, moral values, machismo, Marianismo, etiqueta, as well as profound religious beliefs, combine to prevent U.S. Latinos from openly discussing sexuality with family members. In some cases, just saying sexual words in front of family members may be difficult for some Latinos (Medina 1987). The secrecy surrounding sexuality prevents Latinos from receiving adequate, if any, information about sexuality, contraceptives, and HIV/AIDS and other STDs (Amaro 1991; Carrier & Bolton 1991; Mays & Cochran 1988). In 1992, only 67% of Latinos said they had communicated with their children about AIDS, as compared to 77% of European-Americans and 74% of African-Americans (Schoenborn, Marsh, & Hardy 1994).

[In traditional Latino families, sexuality education may come from extended family members rather than nuclear-family members. Aunts, uncles, and grandparents may assume the role of sexuality educators for younger generations. For instance, Marín, Marín, and Juárez (1990) reported that Latinos were more willing than non-Hispanics to discuss certain sexual topics (i.e., drug use and sex) with an older family member.

[In a study of first-generation immigrant adolescents employed in agriculture, Pérez and Pinzón (1997) found that Latino parents failed to adequately educate their children about sexuality-related matters. However, not all Latino parents hesitate to address sexuality-related issues with their offspring. Some researchers have found that 57 % of Latino parents do communicate with their children about sexuality. In those cases, home-based sexuality education is the primary responsibility of the mother (Biddlecom & Hardy 1991; Dawson & Hardy 1989).

[Latino heterogeneity is further supported by Durant (1990) who reported that Mexican-American females where less likely than non-Latinas to have communicated with their parents about contraception, sex, and pregnancy. Dawson (1990) found that Mexican-Americans were less likely to broach these topics with their children (50%) than were Puerto Ricans (74%) and other Latinos (64%). In those instances where parents educate their children about sexuality, the responsibility most often lies with the mother. Romo, Lefkowitz, and Sigman (2002) found that maternal messages, self-disclosure, and a nonjudgmental attitude played a key role in interactive conversations with their adolescents

[The data suggest that some Latino parents rely on the schools and, in some cases, mass media to educate their children about sexuality-related issues. In a 1994 study, Schoenborn, Marsh, and Hardy found that 46% of Latinos had received AIDS information through radio public service announcements (PSAs), compared to 36% of European-Americans and 44% of African-Americans.

[An additional 14% of Latinos said they had received information through store displays or brochures, compared to 7% of European-Americans and 12% of African-Americans. Marín, Marín, and Juárez (1990) concluded that this lack of sexual education may contribute to higher rates of childbearing among Latinos. This is among the greatest paradoxes encountered among Latinos, since research suggests that home-based sexuality education plays a key role in decreasing pregnancy rates among Latino adolescents (Brindis 1997) and increasing condom use (Moran & Corley 1991).

[Contraception. Throughout Latin America, the number of children in a household assists in establishing a male’s role in the community. A large number of children, especially among low-income populations, are sometimes necessary for economic survival; the more hands available for work, the greater the family’s income. It is, therefore, not surprising that contraceptive methods are skeptically viewed by some Latinos.

[Religion, condom use during first sexual experience (Marín, Marín, & Juárez 1990), sexual orientation (Rotheram-Borus et al. 1994), education, and income (Fennelly 1992) have been identified as being involved with attitudes and likelihood of using contraceptives among Latinos in the U.S. In a survey of urban adolescents, Sonestein, Pleck, and Ku (1989) found that Latino males have more-negative attitudes towards condom use than their non-Hispanic counterparts. In a study of 131 bisexual youths in New York City, Rotheram-Borus and colleagues (1994) found that males were more likely to use condoms with a male than with a female sexual partner.

[Contraceptive use is further compounded by the fact that contraception among Latinos is primarily the responsibility of the woman, who may not have the ability to promote safer-sex practices, including the use of barrier methods, with their sexual partners (Mikawa 1992; Norris & Ford 1992; Marín, Marín, & Juárez 1990). Latino women were less likely to use condoms if their sexual partners opposed condom use than were Latinas whose partners did not oppose them or voiced no opinion. Males’ unwillingness to utilize condoms may place their partners at risk for unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Other studies have found that Latino males are less likely to use condoms with their spouses, or other primary partners, than with other sexual partners (Pérez & Fennelly 1996; Sandoval et al. 1995). Jemmott, Jemmott, and Villarruel (2002) found that Latino college students were more likely to use condoms if they perceived partner and/or peer approval and perceived themselves capable of using the condoms. Similarly, condom use among Latinas has been related to their partners’ willingness to use condoms and women’s fears about their partners having multiple sexual partners (Flaskerud, Uman, Lara, Romero, & Taka 1996).

[The couple’s acculturation and assimilation level, their adherence to Catholic Church doctrine, and their desire for large or small families also play a key role in their decision to use contraceptives (Marín, Marín, & Juárez 1990). The data indicate that more and more Latino men tend to share the decision on whether or not to use contraceptives with their sexual partners.

[Adolescents and Sexuality. Latino youths in the United States balance conflicting messages from two cultures regarding their sexuality (Brindis 1992). While the dominant culture appears to promote high levels of nonmarital sexual activities, Latino youths, particularly females, must also deal with the more conservative Latino cultural norms towards sexuality and the “cult of virginity.”

[Studies investigating sexual behaviors among Latino adolescents have yielded mixed results. Brindis (1992) found that coital activity rates for Latino youth fall somewhere between that of African-Americans and European-Americans. In contrast to self-reports of lower sexual-activity levels among Latino youth, a national survey found no differences among the proportion of Latino and non-Latino Anglo-American young men who engaged in sexual activities before age 13 (4% and 3%, respectively) (Sonestein, Pleck, & Ku 1991). Similarly, Forrest and Sing (1990) found that among never-married females 15 to 19, 49% of Latinas reported being sexually active compared to 52% of European-Americans and 61% of African-Americans. Differences, however, have been found based on attitudes towards premarital sex (Ginson & Kempf 1990; Padilla & Baird 1991). The data suggest that among adolescents, Latino males tend to engage in sexual intercourse at an earlier age than do females (13 and 15 years of age, respectively). In cross-cultural comparisons, Latino adolescents have been found to have higher sexual risk-taking behaviors (i.e., unprotected sex) than their non-Latino counterparts (Brindis, Wolfe, McCater, Ball, et al. 1995). Brindis (1997) concluded that “acculturation is a key variable influencing adolescent attitudes, behavior, and knowledge about reproduction and contraception” (p. 8).

[Some very conservative families see teenage pregnancy, and in some cases, pregnancy before marriage, as a “failure.” These views are expressed in the often-used phrase fracazó la muchacha. It is important to clarify that this “failure” does not represent a rejection of the newborn, but rather the woman’s limitation to pursue educational goals, employment opportunities, and her possibilities for marriage. National data show that in the 1990s, the birthrate among Latina females age 15 to 19 has decreased by 12% compared to 19% for non-Hispanic whites (Moore et al. 2001).

[One of the pivotal stages in a Latino woman’s life is the quinceañera celebration—an event that is analogous to the traditional “sweet sixteen” observed in North America. The quinceañera party marks a woman’s transition to adulthood, including accessibility for marriage and childbearing. During this joyous time, the female is formally introduced to society and is recognized as having achieved full womanhood.

[Educational level and formal instruction play a role in parental willingness to discuss and educate their adolescent offspring about sexuality. Those with more education have been found to be more willing to educate their children about sexuality-related issues.

[Adults and Sexuality. There is a dearth of data related to the frequency and sexual preferences, masturbatory frequency and techniques, use of pornography, and sexual dysfunctions among Latinos in the United States. Latino males are more likely than non-Hispanic whites and African-Americans to indicate a greater level of physical satisfaction with their partner during the last 12 months in primary relationships (51%, 47%, and 43%, respectively). Conversely, Latinas are less likely (39%) than non-Hispanic whites (40%) and African-Americans (44%) to report the same level of satisfaction with their sexual partners (Laumann et al. 1994). Not surprisingly, 96% of Latino men reported always or usually having an orgasm with their partners during the year preceding the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), compared to 68% of Latinas.

[Sexual discussions among Latino men tend to occur within same-gender groups while they are under the influence of alcohol, with sex-industry workers, and in the context of jokes (Carrier & Magaña 1991; de la Vega 1990; Hu & Keller 1989). In a national survey of sexual behaviors, Billy, Tanfer, Grady, and Klepinger (1992) found that Latino men reported a median of 6.1 sexual partners over a lifetime as compared to 8.0 for African-Americans and 6.4 for non-Latino white males. The same study found that Latinos were more likely than non-Latinos to report four or more sexual partners in the last 18 months. In a survey of over 1,500 Latinos, Marín, Gomez, and Hearst (1993) found that 60% of single Latino males reported multiple sexual partners in the previous 12 months.

[Although dialogs about sexual issues are often avoided, Latinos have other more socially acceptable forms to express their sensuality and sexual desire. Some of these mediums include music, dance, art, and poetry. Research indicates that Latino males learn about their sexuality through practical experience rather than through sexual education. Anecdotes suggest that it is not uncommon for young Latinos to lose their virginity through an experience with a sex-industry worker, usually encouraged by older relatives, in what could be termed a “sexual rite of passage.”

[Data from the NHSLS show that Latino males are more likely to engage in masturbation at least once a week than females (24.4% and 4.7%, respectively). The disparity in rates may indicate that Latinas are less likely to acknowledge engaging in this non-acceptable social behavior as perceived by the traditional Latino culture.

[Data from the NHSLS show that Latinos, including women, are less likely than non-Hispanic whites, and more likely than African-Americans to report engaging in fellatio and cunnilingus. Latino males are more likely than females to report that they have performed oral sex (70.7% and 59.7%, respectively). Similarly, Latino males are also more likely than Latinas to report receiving oral sex (72.3% and 63.7%, respectively). Table 5 shows common sexual dysfunction problems by ethnic group in the United States.

[Pregnancy. Researchers have identified acculturation level, parental communication, low education, language, and country of origin as a determinant for pregnancy among Latino women (Durant 1990). Given the cultural significance of motherhood, it is not surprising that in the United States, Latinas experience more per-capita births than their non-Latina counterparts. In 1990, the average number of children per Latino family was 3.76 compared to 3.43 for African-Americans and 3.11 for European-Americans (USDC 1991). Data from the 2000 census show that Latinas had an average of 2.5 births compared to 1.8 for non-Hispanic whites and Asian Pacific Islander women (USBC 2001). Brindis (1997) has suggested that the higher number of children among Latinas may be a residual effect of an intrinsic belief that developed among immigrants based on economic needs and high mortality rates in their countries of origin.

[Garcia (1980) suggested that motherhood serves to secure an identity for the Latino woman. In a 1991 survey, Segura found that the meaning of motherhood among Latinas differed, depending on their country of birth. In his study, Segura surveyed Mexican-born women and American-born Chicanas; the findings indicate that while Mexican-born women viewed motherhood as all-encompassing, Chicanas gave greater meaning to childrearing. Among Latinas, Puerto Rican females have the highest rate of pregnancies. Among Mexican women, those born in Mexico experience more pregnancies than those born in the U.S. (Aneshensel, Becerra, Fiedler, & Schuler 1990). Darabi and Ortiz (1987) concluded that “one plausible explanation of these findings could be that Mexican-origin women marry at very early ages” (p. 27). Further differences were reported by Fennelly (1992), who found birthrates among Latino adolescent females ranging from a high of 21% among Mexican-Americans to a low of 6% among Cuban mothers. Fennelly-Darabi and Ortiz (1987) reported that Latino women were more likely than non-Latino women to have a second birth shortly after the first, and were less likely to have positive attitudes towards abortions.

[Despite higher birthrates than other ethnic groups, lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and fewer prenatal visits to physicians, Latinas as a group have fewer low-birthweight babies. This finding has confused experts who would expect the opposite to be true based on socioeconomic factors. Several explanations have been offered, such as better nutrition in the form of complete proteins, less use of alcohol and other psychoactive drugs during pregnancy, and increased family support during the months preceding childbirth. Other researchers have attempted to link higher birthweights with religiosity and spirituality of Latinas in the United States (Magaña & Clark 1995).

[Latinas in the U.S. have also been found to have among the lowest abortion rates. In a study by Kaplan, Stewart, and Crane (2001), only 7.5% of the Latinas aged 14 to 24 had ever had an induced abortion.

[Marriage. Marriage is highly valued among Latino groups; however, in some cases, no difference is made between legal unions and long-term cohabitation. Fennelly-Darabi, Kandiah, and Ortiz (1989) reported that it is not possible to determine the number of couples in informal unions. In a later study, Landale and Fennelly (1992) reported that while the number of nonmarital unions has decreased on the island of Puerto Rico, they have greatly increased among Puerto Ricans living on the U.S. mainland.

[According to the Census Bureau, in 1990 in the U.S., Latino marriage rates (62.3%) were almost the same as non-Latino whites (64%) and were higher than that of African-Americans (46.3%). By 1999, Census data showed a 68% marriage rate among Latinos, compared to 82% for non-Hispanic whites (USCB 1999).

[On the other hand, data of the National Council of la Raza indicate that “The number of Hispanic single parents has increased at a faster rate than Black or White female-headed families” (1993, 12). According to Brison and Casper (1998), 42% of Latino children are born to a single parent, compared to 58% of African-American children and 25% of non-Hispanic white children. Data from the 1999 Current Population Survey showed that Latino families were more likely than non-Latino whites to be headed by a female head of household without a spouse. Puerto Ricans were found in that study to be more likely to have a female head of household (see Table 6). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1991, 60% of Latino families with a female head of household with children under 18 lived under the poverty line (USBC 1993).

[Fennelly, Kandiah, and Ortiz (1989, 96) argued that “A woman’s marital status at the time she bears a child is important because of the implications for her later fertility, and for her own and her children’s economic and social status.” The social and legal implications of out-of-wedlock births have then been used to explain the reasons why there are more premarital pregnancies than premarital births in the Latino culture. It has been a time-honored tradition among some Latinos to marry while the woman is pregnant, in order to provide a stable and legal union for the newborn.

[Rape. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002), 750,000 Hispanic persons age 12 or older were victims of rape, sexual assault, aggravated assault, and simple assault during 2001. That figure represents an increase from 2000, when about 690,470 Hispanics were victims of rapes, sexual assaults, robberies, and aggravated and simple assaults. While federal statistics show low levels of sexual assault among Latinas, some researchers (Sorenson & Siegel 1992) have speculated that these low incidence rates are primarily because of underreporting by Latinas.

[Research findings seem to suggest that acculturation and gender, not culture, are key determinants of attitudes towards forcible sexual activities. In a study of attitudes towards date rape among college students, Fischer (1987) found that Latino students held more-traditional gender roles and had a more-positive attitude towards forcible intercourse under certain circumstances. These included spending a lot of money on the woman, the length of time they had dated, the female “leading” the man on, and the female’s previous sexual history. Acculturation and gender were also found to play a role in the views of college students towards forcible sexual encounters. According to Fischer (1987), “Bicultural and bilingual Hispanic women are less rejecting of forcible rape than assimilated Hispanic and majority women are, while Hispanic males, regardless of degree of acculturation, are less rejecting of forcible date rape than are majority males” (p. 99).

[Lefley and colleagues (1993) reported that Latinos not only had different definitions of sexual coercion, but also were more likely to blame the victim than were their Anglo-American counterparts. A review of the literature did not support the notion of espousal rape. Males under the influence of alcohol may force their spouses to engage in sexual activities. Forcible sexual intercourse may not be perceived as a violation of a female’s body if it happens within the context of marriage. As a result, espousal-rape reports among Latinos in the U.S. are more likely to occur among the acculturated, assimilated second generation, and those with higher educational levels.

[Same-Gender Sexual Activities. In a study of African-American, Latino, Asian/Eurasian, and Caucasian gay adolescent males, Newman and Muzzonigro (1993) found that traditional families were less accepting of homosexuality than low-traditional families. Bonilla and Porter (1990) found that Latinos did not differ significantly from their African-American and white counterparts on attitudes toward homosexuality; however, they were less tolerant in their perceptions of civil liberties. This lack of acceptance may force males to hide their sexual orientation or to pursue heterosexual lifestyles (i.e., marriage) while secretly engaging in same-gender sexual activities.

[Family acceptance is only part of the equation explaining Latino views toward same-gender sexual activities. Same-gender sex has different meanings and connotations for Latinos than for the non-Latino population in the United States. As a general rule, same-gender relationships are heavily stigmatized among Latinos, even among highly acculturated groups (Fischer 1987). Homosexuality is not a topic easily discussed among males (Pérez & Fennelly 1996).

[Magaña and Carrier (1991) suggested that it is not totally uncommon for Latino males to turn to “effeminate” males to satisfy their sexual needs under certain conditions. They identified lack of a female sexual partner and/or lack the economic resources to visit a sex worker as an acceptable reason for male-male sexual activities. Same-gender sexual behaviors are also more likely to appear while under the influence of alcohol. Same-gender sexual activity perceptions are also affected by Latino cultural norms. Latinos do not necessarily classify the penile inserter during male-male anal sex as homosexual (Amaro 1991; Carrier 1976). As a result, Latino males engaging in same-gender sexual activities may not perceive themselves, or be perceived as, “homosexual” or “bisexual,” as long as they play the appropriate dominant sexual role—a role which tends to mirror that of the male in a heterosexual couple (CDC 1993). Carrier (1976) reported that unlike their American “gay” counterparts, Mexican males engaging in same-gender sex prefer anal intercourse over fellatio or other forms of sexual gratification. Also, in contrast to their Anglo-American counterparts, Latino males are more likely to assume only the passive or receptive role during same-gender encounters. Ross, Paulsen, and Stalstrom (1988) concluded that it is not the sexual act itself, but rather the cross-gender behavior which gets labeled and heavily stigmatized among Latinos.

[The lack of identification with the homosexual community may explain the inability of Latino men who engage in sex with other men to identify or respond to educational programs targeting homosexuals. But, most importantly, it emphasizes the need for researchers to concentrate more on behaviors than labels when studying sexual interactions (Alcalay et al. 1990; Carrier & Magaña 1991). The labeling-versus-behavior distinction is important in light of the fact that 45% of AIDS cases among Latinos are the result of same-gender sex, and that an additional 7% of AIDS cases are related to same-gender sex with intravenous drug users (CDC 1994). (For additional discussion of HIV/AIDS and Latinos, see section 10B, Sexually Transmitted Diseases and HIV/AIDS, below.)

[Acculturation plays a major role in Latino participation in same-gender sexual activity. According to Greene (1994), same-gender male sexual activity may be prompted by the “Cult of Virginity,” since a Latino male may not be able to find a female sexual partner.

[In the Latino culture, female-female sexual activity is even more stigmatized than male-to-male sexual activity. This rejection can be explained by what Trujillo (1991) labeled a threat to the traditional male dominance. The lack of acceptance may also be explained by the fact that female-to-female sexual contact dispels the myth of Latinas being submissive and not well versed in sexuality-related matters.

[Bisexuality. De la Vega (1990) discussed three bisexual patterns among Latino men in the United States. The first type he labeled the closeted, self-identified, homosexual Latino. He described this type as a male with homosexual tendencies, but who lives a heterosexual lifestyle. The second type discussed by de la Vega, is the closeted, latent-homosexual Latino; this type is characterized by a male who describes himself as a heterosexual, but who engages in same-gender sex while under the influence of mind-altering substances, primarily alcohol. Finally, de la Vega described the “super-macho” heterosexual Latino. This man allows himself to have sexual contacts with other males, since he considers them to be “pseudo-females.” This last type of male will not admit, even to himself, that he may express homosexual tendencies.

[Summary. Latinos in the United States represent a wide range of educational attainment, socioeconomic levels, and skin color. Sexual practices and knowledge among this population have been found to be heavily influenced by strict cultural norms largely shaped by the Catholic Church. However, the data suggest that Latino sexual norms and behaviors are as varied as the heterogeneous groups they represent. Further research is needed to properly investigate sexual attitudes and behaviors among the individual groups. (End of update by M. A. Pérez and H. L. Pinzón-Pérez]

[American Indian (Native American) Sexuality

WALTER L. WILLIAMS

[Update 2003: While the aboriginal cultures of North America were extremely diverse, many Native American religions place a high value on the freedom of each person to follow the dictates of his or her own individual spirit guardian. This focus on individual freedom is exemplified by their accepting attitude toward people’s sexual drives. They value sex as a gift from the spirit world, to be freely enjoyed from youth to old age. With this positive view of sex, erotic behaviors are not viewed as “sinful,” but rather as expressions of each individual’s spirit. With the exception of rape, which is condemned as a violation of a non-consenting person’s right to their own sexual inclinations, sex is seen as something to be celebrated rather than denied.

[With this view, among traditionalist Native Americans, sexual exploration is seen as normal for people from early childhood, and traditionalist adults are more likely to view children’s erotic expression with amusement rather than alarm. Children are given great freedom, and their wishes are respected by adults. If a child freely agrees to engage in sex play with another child or with an adult, there is no concept that they are “below the age of consent.”

[When a child reaches puberty, a ceremony is common to mark the transition from childhood to adulthood. After puberty, a person is considered an adult and can marry and have children if they choose. While personal attractions and intimate relations are common between spouses, the most important role of marriage in Native American traditional cultures is as an economic arrangement.

[Marriage provides the complementary contributions of both husbands and wives. In aboriginal times, the role of the husband was twofold: He was expected to bring in meat through hunting and also to serve as a warrior to protect the community from outside attack. The wife, likewise, had two major roles: to bring in plant foods (either by gathering wild plants or cultivating domestic plants in farming communities), and to produce children. In hunting-gathering bands and tribes, producing children was an integral part of economic survival. As the parents became elders, they depended upon children to take care of them in their old age. Females’ unique ability to give birth and to nurse the young with their breast milk was valued equally to men’s warrior roles.

[In fact, the danger of a woman dying during childbirth was as great as the danger faced by warriors at war. Women were honored for subjecting themselves to the danger of childbirth, just as men were honored for subjecting themselves to the danger of warfare. Both warriors and mothers were given social status, as they sacrificed themselves for the good of the band or the tribe. A woman’s status was based upon her position as a mother rather than her position as a wife. In matrilineal tribes, even unmarried women who became mothers had high status, and she could live with her female and male relatives in a woman-centered kinship system.

[Marriage, however, was institutionalized primarily for the economic contributions that these close intimate bonds produced. People survived not as husband-wife pairs, but as members of a larger extended-family kinship grouping. Bringing an unrelated person into the household as a new spouse added another person to the economic unit of the extended family. The new spouse’s family was considered as in-laws, who might become an additional resource during times of scarcity. Thus, the function of a large extended kinship system was to provide a wide network of persons to whom one could turn during times of need.

[Husbands and wives had sexual intercourse to produce children, but sex was not considered to be limited to its reproductive role. While Christian ideologues have asserted that “the only purpose of sex is reproduction,” Native American views do not limit sex to this function. Sex is most importantly seen as a reflection of two people’s close intimate bonding and love for each other.

[Another purpose of sex is to cement close intimate relationships between friends. Friendship is considered to be extremely important in Native communities, much more so than in Western culture. Friendships exist between husbands and wives, of course, but close intimate bonds between same-sex friends are also equally valued. Since close relationships between two male “blood brothers” or two close female friends are encouraged by society, these friendships might provide the cover for a sexual relationship. Sex might or might not be involved, but sexual involvement is a reflection of the friendship. Ironically, because friends can freely show emotion to each other, there is little social recognition of private sexual behavior between friends. Their sexual activities are considered to be a private matter between friends.

[The dual system of marriage (promoting close relationships between different genders) and friendship (promoting close same-gender relationships) functioned in aboriginal times to keep band and tribal societies unified. Because sex was an integral part of human relationships, it was viewed positively as an important social force that tied individuals together in wide webs of interpersonal relations. For aboriginal Native American cultures, then, the role of sex in promoting close interpersonal ties was just as important as its reproductive function.

[Among Indian people, homosexual relationships have often existed within the context of close friendships, both between two men and between two women. But in indigenous times, marriage was another matter. Marriage was an economic union of a masculine hunter and a feminine plant provider. This division of labor by gender was not absolute, since food preparation, domestic work, childcare duties, and craftwork varied by culture and even by individual preference. Such activities were often shared by both spouses. Nevertheless, a major purpose of marriage was to provide both meat and plant foods for the survival of the extended family and the rearing of the next generation.

[With marriage partners complementing each other’s economic roles, it is not surprising that marriage between two masculine men, or two feminine women, was traditionally frowned upon. A marriage between two hunters or two plant providers would not make sense in terms of economic survival. People needed both meat and plants to survive. Nevertheless, rather than prohibit same-sex marriages altogether, many indigenous Native American cultures recognized homosexual marriages when one partner took on an alternative gender role. Thus, an androgynous or feminine male was expected to marry a masculine man, while a masculine female most likely took a woman as a wife. It was expected that a feminine male would prefer to do women’s work, while a masculine female was often noted as a hunter.

[With this cross-labor expectation for transgendered individuals, the mixed-gender nature of marriage could be preserved, while still allowing those persons with same-sex inclinations to fulfill their erotic desires.

[In many aboriginal tribes, the feminine male or masculine female had a special honored role. Because they were seen as uniting the spirit of a man and the spirit of a woman, some indigenous languages referred to these transgendered persons as “two-spirit people.” Early French explorers called them “berdache,” adapting a Persian word bardaj, meaning a close intimate friend of the same sex with whom one had a homosexual relationship. These androgynous roles were seen by native societies as being different and distinct from the regular roles of men and women. Some anthropologists suggest that this pattern is “gender-mixing,” while others call it a transgender or alternative gender role. The important point is that Native values allowed for more than two gender options.

[In the concepts of spirituality in many Native shamanistic religions, the person who was different from the average person was thought to have been created that way by the spirits. Two-spirit persons were respected because their “spirit” (i.e., what Westerners refer to as a person’s basic character) was more important than their biological sex in determining their social identity. In fact, two-spirit persons were considered to be “exceptional” rather than “abnormal.”

[Early European explorers often reported their amazement that many North American Indian tribes respected two-spirit persons as spiritually gifted. Since women had high status in most aboriginal cultures, and the spirit of women was as highly regarded as the spirit of men, a person who combined the spirits of both was seen as having an extraordinary spirituality. Such sacred people were often honored with special ceremonial roles in religious ceremonies, and they were often known as healers and shamans. They had the advantage of seeing things from both the masculine and the feminine perspectives, and so were respected as seers and prophets. Two-spirit people were known as creative persons who worked hard to help their extended family and their community. They often served as healers, artists, performers, and teachers of the young.

[Having such high social and religious status, the sexual behaviors of two-spirit people were also considered sacred. They usually engaged in sex with a person of the same sex, but this was not seen as a homosexual relationship. Instead, it was conceived as a “heterogender” relationship. The distinct gender role of the two-spirit person, reflecting their transgendered spirit, was more important than the physical sex of their body. Thus, the masculine husband of a male two-spirit, or the feminine wife of a female two-spirit, were not considered homosexual. Because the spouse conformed to the standard gender role for their sex, they were considered as a man or a woman, nothing more and nothing less. The fact that their spouse was of the same biological sex was not the defining factor. Therefore, indigenous Native American cultures did not define people by dividing them into two sexual orientations, “heterosexual” or “homosexual.” People were defined primarily by their gender role, as reflected in their labor preferences, dress, and personality.

[The fluidity of gender roles and the ease of ending a marriage meant that a person could be married to a two-spirit person of the same sex, but could later marry heterosexually with no change in identity or social status. Or, in the case of Plains tribes where plural wives were common, a masculine man might have a male two-spirit wife in addition to his female wives.

[Native Americans were not the only world cultures to give high veneration to the sacredness of transgendered persons and same-sex marriages. Similar traditions of alternative gender roles that were associated with same-sex erotic behaviors were known in ancient cultures of Asia, Oceania, Africa, and the Middle East. Especially, similar religious traditions exist among the native peoples of Siberia. Since the ancestors of Native Americans migrated from Siberia over 20,000 years ago, this evidence suggests that two-spirit traditions are quite ancient.

[Just as in the case with Native Americans, the expansionist imperialism of homophobic European cultures after 1492 marked the beginning of a new era of attack on transgenderism and same-sex love. The early Spanish conquistadors and Catholic priests killed and tortured two-spirit persons, whom they labeled “sodomites.” By the early 20th century, both United States government officials and Christian missionaries were forcing two-spirit people to change their dress and behavior to conform to standard gender roles, and refused to recognize their same-sex marriages.

[Even heterosexual marriages changed drastically among Native Americans under United States domination. The Christian conception of marriage involving only one man and one woman forced men who had plural wives to choose one woman and abandon all of their other wives. Large extended families were largely broken up in favor of nuclear marriage. Marriages that were once easily ended by either spouse were forced to continue, unless the husband and wife went through an expensive and emotionally draining legal divorce process. As a result, many unhappy spouses continued to stay married. Without the protection of her other adult relatives living in the same household, which in matrilineal societies had served to protect women from an angry husband’s wrath, domestic violence increased dramatically among 20th-century Indians. Plagued by poverty, alcoholism, and powerlessness, some Native men took out their frustrations on their wives and children. Because of the pervasive influence of missionaries on Indian reservations, many Indians converted to Christianity and absorbed repressive Western attitudes toward sex.

[Despite this deterioration in family relations and traditional sexual freedom, the most astounding fact of life for contemporary American Indians is the revival of traditional Native American religions and values. With this revitalization in recent decades, a new respect for two-spirit people—and a new determination to continue Native attitudes toward sex—has reasserted itself. Native American sexuality has not succumbed to the Western onslaught, but instead has started influencing mainstream American attitudes toward a more accepting and celebratory approach to sex. As among the aboriginal Americans, modern Americans of the 21st century are beginning to see sex as a gift from the spirit world, to be appreciated and enjoyed widely. (End of update by W. L. Williams)]

Feminism and Sexuality in the United States

PATRICIA BARTHALOW KOCH

A Brief History of the Feminist Movements. Earlier in this section, we discussed groups that illustrate ways in which religion and race or ethnicity operate as social factors defining subcultures within the U.S.A. and influence sexuality. Gender can be regarded in a similar manner. Here, we now consider feminist perspectives as reflections of a distinct social group or subculture.

Feminism is defined and implemented in various ways by different people. In its broadest interpretation, feminism represents advocacy for women’s interests; in a stricter definition, it is the “theory of the political, social, and economic equality of the sexes” (LeGates 1995, 494). Although the terms “feminism” and “feminist” are only about a hundred years old, advocates for women’s interests have been active for centuries throughout the world. As Robin Morgan (1984, 5) wrote in Sisterhood Is Global, “An indigenous feminism has been present in every culture in the world and in every period of history since the suppression of women began.” Throughout history, women have protested, individually and collectively, against a range of injustices—often as part of other social movements in which gender equality was not the focus of the activity and women were not organized to take action on behalf of their gender.

However, stress on the ideologies of liberty, equality, and emancipation of men in the 18th-century political revolutions in Britain, France, and the United States laid the groundwork for these ideologies to be championed in women’s lives also. In addition, the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century provided educational and economic opportunities supportive of a feminist movement in many societies.

Actual women’s movements, or organized and sustained activities for gender equality supported by a relatively large number of people over a period of years, have occurred since the mid-1800s in many countries throughout the world. The United States, as well as most European societies, experienced extensive women’s movements in the closing decades of the 19th century, with another wave of feminism occurring in the 1960s.

The beginning of an organized women’s movement in the United States has been traced to the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 where a Declaration of Principles called for gender equality (Chefetz & Dworkin 1986). Issues addressed included women’s legal rights to property, children, and to their own earnings; equal educational and employment opportunities; the changing of negative feminine stereotypes; and increased opportunities for women to improve their physical fitness and health. These early feminists also addressed more-explicit sexual issues, including the abolition of the sexual double standard of expecting men to be “promiscuous” and women to be “pure”; equality between sexual partners; and the right of married women to refuse sexual activity with their husbands. Yet, although feminist ideology was well developed during these pre-Civil War years, the progressive feminist leaders had few followers. “In the 19th and early 20th centuries the United States was not ready for a mass movement which questioned the entire gender role and sex stratification systems” (Chefetz & Dworkin 1986, 112).

Only when the issues were narrowed to focus upon women’s right to vote did the movement gain mass following. By 1917, about two million women were members of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, and millions more were supporters of the women’s suffrage campaign (Kraditor 1965). The reasons for supporting a woman’s right to vote, however, were varied. For some, it was an issue of basic human rights and gender equality. Many others, who believed in gender-role differentiation, supported suffrage on the basis that women would bring higher moral standards into governmental decisions. This more-conservative perspective dominated the movement. After achieving the right to vote in 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this first wave of feminism dissipated.

A second wave of feminism developed within the United States, as well as worldwide, in the 1960s. At this time, many women were finding that, while their participation in educational institutions and the labor force was increasing, their political, legal, economic, and social status was not improving. This American feminist movement came on the heels of the black civil rights movement, which had already focused attention on the immorality of discrimination and legitimized mass protest and activism as methods for achieving equality (Freeman 1995). The contemporary women’s movement was organized around many interrelated issues, including: legal equality; control over one’s own body, including abortion rights; elimination of discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation; securing more political power; and the ending of institutional and social roadblocks to professional and personal achievement. By the mid-1970s, this issue became a mass movement, with over half of American women supporting many of its principles and demands (Chefetz & Dworkin 1986).

The second women’s movement had two origins, from two different strata of society, with different styles, values, and forms of organization (Freeman 1995). Although the members of both branches were predominantly white, middle-class, and college-educated, there was a generation gap between them. The younger branch was comprised of a vast array of local, decentralized, grassroots groups that concentrated on a small number or only one issue, rather than the entire movement. Members tended to adjure hierarchical structure and the traditional political system. Some of the activities in which they engaged included: running consciousness-raising groups; providing educational conferences and literature; establishing woman-supporting services (bookstores, health clinics, rape crisis centers, and battered-women shelters); and organizing public-awareness campaigns and marches. This branch was responsible for infusing the movement with new issues, strategies, and techniques for social change. Many of its projects became institutionalized within American society (e.g., rape crisis centers) through government funding and entrepreneurship.

These feminists also took their particular perspectives into other arenas, including the pro-choice, environmental, and antinuclear movements. They also had an impact on academia, establishing women’s centers and women’s studies departments, programs, and courses on campuses throughout the country. By the early 1980s, there were over 300 women’s studies programs and 30,000 courses in colleges and universities, and a national professional association, the National Women’s Studies Association (Boxer 1982). Many periodicals devoted exclusively to scholarship on women or gender were begun; Searing (1987) listed 94 such journals.

The second branch of the women’s movement was the older, more-traditional division that formed top-down national organizations with officers and boards of directors, and often paid staffs and memberships. Most of these organizations sought support through contributions, foundations, or government contracts to conduct research and services. Some of these feminist organizations included: the Women’s Legal Defense Fund, the Center for Women’s Policy Studies, the Feminist Majority Foundation, and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, with other previously established groups taking on a more-feminist agenda, such as the National Federation of Business and Professional Women and the American Association of University Women.

The National Organization for Women (NOW), an action organization devoted to women’s rights, was the primary feminist group to develop a mass membership. NOW focused its attention at the national level to become politically powerful. One of its major campaigns was the passage of an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing legal equality for women. The ERA was endorsed by the U.S. Congress and sent to the states for ratification in 1972. In 1978, over 100,000 people marched in Washington D.C. in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. But the ERA and feminism were to meet with strong opposition from well-organized conservative and right-wing political and religious groups that depicted feminist goals as “an attack on the family and the American way of life” (Freeman 1995, 525). Stop-ERA campaigns were adeptly organized by these politically savvy groups and, by 1982, the ERA had failed to pass within the allotted timeframe by seven votes in three states.

Yet, it cannot be said that the feminist movement failed. Many states passed equal rights amendments of their own, and many discriminatory federal, state, and local laws were changed with the Supreme Court unanimously ruling in favor of interpreting constitutional law to provide equal opportunity for women. In addition, a powerful women’s health movement had been spawned, and efforts for reproductive freedom, including abortion rights, would be continued to combat anti-abortion groups throughout the 1980s and 1990s. As Freeman (1995, 528) concluded: “The real revolution of the contemporary women’s movement is that the vast majority of the [United States] public no longer questions the right of any woman, married or unmarried, with or without children to work for wages to achieve her fullest potential.”

Although feminists agree there are still many strides to be made in achieving the goals of legal, economic, political, and social equality for women in the United States, they are often divided over philosophy, goals, and strategies for achieving equality in these areas. Feminism is not a monolithic ideology. There is “not a single interpretation on what feminism means but a variety of feminisms representing diverse ideas and perspectives radiating out from a core set of assumptions regarding the elimination of women’s secondary status in society” (Pollis 1988, 86-87).

Feminism and Sexuality. Sexuality has always been a critical issue to feminists, because they see the norms regarding “proper” and “normal” sexual behavior as functioning to socialize and suppress women’s expression and behavior in an effort to control female fertility as socioeconomic and political assets (Tiefer 1995). “The personal is political,” the feminist rallying cry, applies particularly to sexuality, which is often the most personal, hidden, suppressed, and guilt-ridden aspect of women’s lives. MacKinnon (1982, 515) captures this essence well in the analogy that: “Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away.”

Although women are now being seen as sexual beings in their own right, not simply as reproducers or sexual property, Tiefer (1995, 115) describes how women’s sexual equality is still constrained by many factors, including:

Persistent socioeconomic inequality that makes women dependent on men and therefore sexually subordinate; unequal laws such as those regarding age of sexual consent and rights in same-sex relationships; lack of secure reproductive rights; poor self-image or a narrow window of confidence because of ideals of female attractiveness; ignorance of woman-centered erotic techniques, social norms about partner choice; and traumatic scars from sexual abuse.

In general, feminists believe that both women’s and men’s sexuality is socially constructed and must be examined within its social context (McCormick 1994). Gender-role socialization is viewed as a very powerful process creating unequal power relationships and stereotypic expectations for appropriate sexual feelings and behaviors of women and men. Male gender-role socialization based on male political, social, and economic dominance is likely to result in male sexual control, aggression, and difficulties with intimacy. On the other hand, female gender-role socialization based on political, social, and economic oppression of women is likely to result in disinterest and dissatisfaction with sex, as well as passivity and victimization. Feminists question the assumption of a binary gender system and challenge traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity (Irvine 1990). They politicize sexuality by examining the impact that power inequalities between men and women have on sexual expression.

Although most feminists may agree upon the relevance of socialization and context in the creation of male and female sexuality, they may vehemently disagree about the nature of sexual oppression and the strategies for its elimination (McCormick 1994). This has resulted in the emergence of two major feminist camps: radical feminists and liberal feminists.

As described by McCormick (1994, 211), radical feminists have polarized male and female sexuality—often demonizing men and idealizing women in this process. They view women as victims who must be protected. They use evidence showing girls and women as the predominant victims and boys and men as the perpetrators of rape, sexual harassment, prostitution, domestic violence, and childhood sexual abuse to support their views.

Radical feminists are vehemently opposed to pornography, “likening erotic images and literature to an instruction manual by which men are taught how to bind, batter, torture, and humiliate women” (McCormick 1994, 211). They have spearheaded many efforts to censor pornographic/erotic materials, often joining with right-wing organizations in these efforts. Another goal of radical feminists is the elimination of prostitution, which they view as trafficking in women’s bodies. They believe that all women in the sex trades are being victimized.

Because of these beliefs, radical feminists are criticized as treating women as children who are incapable of giving true consent to their choice of sexual activities. In response, these feminists argue that it is our sociopolitical system that treats women as second class and has robbed them of the equality needed for consensual sexual expression. Until this system is changed, true consent from women is not possible. In fact, orthodox radical feminists do not recognize the possibility of consensual heterosexuality, finding little difference between conventional heterosexual intercourse and rape, viewing both acts as representing male supremacy (McCormick 1994, 211). Radical feminists are accused of advocating “politically correct sex” by idealizing monogamous, egalitarian, lesbian sex and celibacy, and rejecting any other forms of consensual relationships or activity.

On the other hand, liberal feminists defend women’s rights to sexual pleasure and autonomy. They believe that, if women are viewed only as victims, they are stripped of their adult autonomy and their potential to secure joyous and empowering sexual pleasure and relationships on their own behalf (McCormick 1994, 211). These feminists do not view all erotic material as harmful and believe in women’s right to create their own erotic material. They differentiate between the depictions of forced sex in pornography and actual violence against women. Although not always pleased with all types of pornographic material, they believe in the right of free speech and choice, and acknowledge that censorship efforts could never eliminate all pornographic material anyway. In addition, who is to decide what is pornographic and what is erotic? Regarding prostitution, they view sex work as a legitimate occupational choice for some, and acknowledge the tremendous range of experience with sex work primarily based on social class.

Liberal feminism dominated the first phase of the women’s movement of the 1960s. The emphasis was on women’s empowerment to achieve professional and personal, including sexual, potentials. The expansion of sexual possibilities was explored, with pleasure being emphasized. The strategies of consciousness-raising, education, and female-centered care were used to help eliminate sexual shame and passivity, with women being encouraged to discover and develop new sexual realities for themselves (Tiefer 1995, 115). However, beginning in the 1970s, the pendulum began to swing away from an emphasis on the power of self-definition towards the agendas of the radical feminists who emphasized issues of sexual violence against women, including rape, incest, battery, and harassment. Thus, during this current feminist movement, much more time and emphasis has been devoted to women’s sexual victimization, danger, and repression than to women’s sexual equality, pleasure, and relationship enhancement.

Today, many in the general public, professionals, and even sexologists fail to distinguish between differences within feminism. They are most aware of and react primarily to the radical-feminist ideologies and strategies. Thus, feminism has become stereotyped by the extreme positions of the radicals and seems to have lost much of its overt mass support, with many trying to distance themselves from these extreme positions. For example, it is not unusual to hear someone today say, “I believe in women’s rights but I’m not a feminist.”

Feminist Critiques of and Contributions to Sexology. Feminist sexology is the scholarly study of sexuality that is of, by, and for women’s interests. Employing diverse epistemologies, methods, and sources of data, feminist scholars examine women’s sexual experiences and the cultural frame that constructs sexuality. They challenge the assumptions that sexuality is an eternal essence, arguing “that a kiss is not a kiss and a sigh is not a sigh and a heterosexual is not a heterosexual and an orgasm is not an orgasm in any transhistorical, transcultural way” (Tiefer 1995, 597). These theories and approaches have resulted in an enormous body of work during the last two decades reexamining theories, methods, and paradigms of gender and sexuality, and contributing to social change (Vance & Pollis 1990).

During this time, feminists and others have challenged the preeminence and validity of traditional science, particularly as it has been applied to human beings and their behaviors. They have argued that traditional science, rather than being objective and value-free, takes place in a particular cultural context (one that is often sexist and heterosexist), which thus becomes incorporated into research, education, or therapy (McCormick 1994). For example, research on unintended and adolescent pregnancy is focused almost exclusively on females, reflecting a double standard requiring women to be the sexual gatekeepers while relieving men of such responsibilities.

Another example comes from therapy. Numerous studies have determined that relationship factors, including intimacy, nongenital stimulation, affection, and communication, are better predictors of women’s sexual satisfaction than frequency of intercourse or orgasm. Nevertheless, the dominant therapeutic paradigm, as enforced by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, uses physiologically based genital performance during heterosexual intercourse as the standard for determining women’s sexual dysfunctions (Tiefer 1995).

Feminist scholarship uses the following principles in overcoming the deficits in understanding of women’s experiences, gender and gender asymmetry, and sexuality:

Sexology has been criticized for being reticent to integrate feminist perspectives and scholarship into its establishment for fear of being perceived as unscientific and radical (Irvine 1990). However, in recent years, feminist perspectives have become more visible in the scholarly journals, conferences, and among the membership and leadership of professional sexological organizations. Future goals for feminist sexologists include more attention to understanding the intersections of race, class, and culture within gender, and making the results of their work more usable.

[The Emergence of Men’s Perspectives on Sexuality

WARREN FARRELL

[Update 2003: In the 1950s, both sexes were defined by roles. In the early 2000s, men are still defined largely by roles; women define themselves. (The following discussion is based on the author’s The Myth of Male Power, Farrell 1993/2001). As the women’s movement has helped women develop options and no men’s movement of any consequence has done the same for men, we have entered the Era of the Multi-Option Woman and the No-Option Man. Thus, in the U.S., our daughters now have the option to join the armed services, but our sons have no option but to register for the draft.

[The Era of the Multi-Option Woman and the No-Option Man extends itself to the sexual arena (see also: Bly 1990; Cassell 1993; Farrell 1999; Goldberg 1977; Gurian 1977; Halpern 1994; Jeffers 1989; Kipnis 1991; La Framboise 1996; Lyndon 1992; Lynch 1999; Philpot 1997; Simon 1995):

[Many men feel the feminist movement has persuaded the public that men had the power, and that men used women to serve men’s sexual needs at the expense of women’s. The average heterosexual male, though, desires sex a lot more than he has it. It is in his interest to have women be more sexual, not less; to wear fewer clothes, not have faces covered by veils; to have sex without children, not have children and be deprived of sex. From his perspective, women are to sex what the OPEC nations are to oil: the more they keep it in short supply, the more power they have.

[A more accurate view than the feminist perspective of the gender politics of sex, according to many of these men—in organizations such as the National Coalition of Free Men—is best discussed in books like The Myth of Male Power. The Myth of Male Power explains how sexual harassment and date rape legislation both hold only the man responsible for the traditional male role of taking the direct sexual initiatives; neither holds the woman responsible for the traditional female role of taking indirect sexual initiatives. The following serve as some examples (see also Gelles & Straus 1988).

[Sex in the Workplace. For example, Cosmopolitan, which has been the bestselling magazine to single women during the entire women’s movement—and still is—features articles instructing women how to take indirect sexual initiatives. Thus, a real article titled, “How to Catch a Man at Work,” tells her (and I’m quoting Cosmo here), “As you pass his desk, drop a pile of papers or a purse, then stoop down to gather them up. He’ll help. Lean close to him, put your hand on his shoulder to steady your balance. . . .” Or, “Immediately after you meet him, touch him in some way, even if it’s to pick imaginary lint off his jacket.” Or, “Brush up against him in the elevator.” Or “If you have good legs, wear a very tight, short skirt and high heels. Bend over with your back to a man (to pick up something or look in a file drawer).” Of course, it’s hard for a man to say, “Your honor, I initiated because she picked imaginary lint off my jacket.”

[The problem with indirect initiatives is when the wrong man approaches the woman who has leaned over the file drawer in her tight, short skirt; suddenly, an environment she’s helped to create feels hostile. But only he becomes vulnerable to a lawsuit.

[Is it possible there is something deeper—maybe unconscious—going on here? First, sexual harassment lawsuits can sometimes be the latest way of making men have to overcome barriers to be sexual with women in an era when the birth control pill had reduced those barriers (see also Symons 1981). Second, prior to divorces becoming popular, women had their source of income guaranteed for a lifetime. Once divorces became acceptable, though, feminists began to demand that the government become a substitute husband (Gilder 1987)—thus, the EEOC’s decision number 84-1 allows complaining to a girlfriend at work to be “sufficient to support a finding of harassment” (Pollak 1991). That used to be called gossip. Now it’s called evidence.

[In one decade, then, women had gotten more protection against offensive jokes in the workplace than men had gotten in centuries against being killed in the workplace. For example, one construction worker dies every workday hour—yet in the U.S., we have six fish-and-game inspectors for each workplace inspector (see also Kimbrell 1995). The plea for female protection is ironic, since feminists were the first group to decry how protective legislation discriminated against women by not allowing women to be hired in certain positions. The protection desired is from men’s methods of sexualizing the work environment, not women’s. For example:

[Miniskirts-Without-Repercussions. The miniskirt, long nails, nail polish, and indirect initiatives were historically designed to catch a man, lead to marriage, and therefore, in the past, to the end of a woman’s involvement in the workplace. These indirect initiatives, therefore, unconsciously signal to a man that this woman wants an end to her involvement in the workplace (see also Cassell 1993). Feminists, though, have not asked the government to make laws against this form of sexualizing the workplace.

[“Dirty” Jokes. Feminists often claim that dirty jokes are the male method of intimidating women. In fact, men tell dirty jokes to peers in order to bond, not intimidate. When a male boss tells a dirty joke, it’s often his unconscious way of getting his staff to not take him so seriously and, therefore, not be intimidated (see also Fekete 1994; Roiphe 1993).

[Hazing Versus Harassment. Historically, men knew that if a man was preoccupied with his vulnerability, he couldn’t protect. So a short guy will be hazed with jokes like, “Which is higher, your IQ or your size?” All novices were hazed before they could be accepted as part of the team. Men test men before men trust men. From a man’s unconscious perspective, if a woman isn’t being hazed, she’s not being tested and therefore, she’s not being trusted.

[Better Solutions Than Current Workplace Sex Regulations. How would many men want to deal with sexual contact in the workplace?

[Step one: Resocializing women to share responsibility for taking sexual initiatives, rather than just blaming men when they do it wrong. Men will be our sexual harassers as long as men are our initiators.

[Step two: Changing “sexual harassment” seminars to “sexual contact in the workplace” seminars in which men can also discuss the effect of the Cosmo-type indirect initiatives.

[Step three: If a woman feels sexually harassed, encourage her to tell the man directly. Most men want to please women, not anger women.

[The Politics of Date Rape. A date obviously does not imply permission to be sexual, which, therefore, allows the possibility of date rape. From both sexes’ perspective, date rape is not only a legitimate issue, but a serious one, because when a woman is raped by a man she is dating, her ability to trust is raped even more than when she’s raped by a stranger (whom she had no expectation of trusting). Every time a woman experiences a date rape, every man is also hurt—because every man in that woman’s life will be less trusted and have more to prove than he otherwise would (see also Roiphe 1993).

[The problem is the politics of date rape. The word “rape” has become to sexual politics since the 1980s what the word “communism” became to American politics in the 1940s and 1950s: When the mere accusation can result in the assumption of guilt, it is a setup for false accusations to be levied at any enemy. When this exists in an atmosphere in which famous people like Marilyn French (author of The Women’s Room) can say, “All men are rapists and that’s all they are” (Jennes 1983), without protest, and a Vassar College Assistant Dean of Students can be quoted in Time magazine saying, “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience” (attributed to Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life, Catherine Comins, in Gibbs 1991),¹ without protest, then men have become the new communists.

[¹I called Catherine Comins and then faxed a letter to her at Vassar to be certain she was not misquoted. She did not respond.

[The flaw is that none of this holds women responsible for their part in the male-female dance. Yet, 25 million women in the U.S. read an average of 20 romance novels per month, often featuring the formula of a working woman who is approached by a successful man, the woman resisting, the man overcoming her resistance, and the woman getting “swept away” (see also Cassell 1993). The book titles that sell best to women are titles like Danielle Steele’s Sweet Savage Love, in which the heroine marries her rapist and rejects the man who saves her; they do not include titles like He Stopped When I Said No.

[Twenty-five million women is five times the number of readers of Playboy and Penthouse combined. The solution to the politics of date rape must include recognizing that his overcoming her resistance may be her fantasy at least as much as his. It also includes thinking of men not as the political enemy, but as our sons. For example, imagine your son dating a woman from Vassar who feels that a man could gain from being falsely accused of rape. When your son comes home for the holidays and tells you he might be spending next semester in prison—where he will be considered “fresh meat” by the prisoners—do you tell him, “Don’t worry, boys who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience”? Do you feel good about paying taxpayer dollars to support colleges that subject your son to random acts of imprisonment because he wasn’t born as your daughter? Now suppose your son entered the armed services rather than college, how would you feel about the U.S. Air Force study that was kept quiet because it discovered that 60% of the rape accusations turned out to be false—not unfounded, but false?² (see also Lynch 1997).

[²Written correspondence to me from Charles P. McDowell, Ph.D., M.P.A., M.L.S., Supervisory Special Agent of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations, March 20, 1992. This is based on an Air Force study of 556 rape allegations.

[So the big question is: How do we make dating the most positive experience possible for both our daughters and our sons? Do we do that by criminalization, or by resocialization? Thus far, we’ve focused on criminalization—and the criminalization has been focused on criminalizing only the male role.

[One reason we have focused on criminalization is our acceptance of the belief that rape is a manifestation of male political and economic power. In fact, any given black man is three times as likely as a white man to be reported as a rapist. Do blacks suddenly have more political and economic power? Maybe rape does not derive from power, but rather from powerlessness.

[To check this out, we must challenge the current belief that rape has nothing to do with sexual attraction—it is just an act of violence, and that this is “proven” by the fact that women of every age are raped. In fact, being at the age of greatest sexual attraction makes the chances of being raped at least 8,400% greater than being raped at an age over 50 years old. That is, when a woman is between ages 16 and 19, her chances of being raped are 84 in 20,000; when she is between 50 and 64, her chances are less than one in 20,000 (USBJS 1987). Sexual attraction, then, does have something to do with who is raped.

[If rape were just an act of violence, then it should not be distinguished from any other violent crime. Other violent crimes are not distinguished by the body parts involved. If they were, “assault to the head” is a crime deserving greater punishment than rape, unless feminists are saying that a woman’s vagina is more important than a woman’s head.

[We hear that date rape is always a crime, never a misunderstanding. Yet, anyone who works with both sexes knows it is possible for a woman to go back to a man’s room, tell him she doesn’t want to have intercourse, mean it, start kissing, willingly have intercourse, and then wish she had not in the morning. How? Kissing is like eating potato chips. Before we know it, we’ve gone farther than we said we would, and in the morning we regret it. But that doesn’t mean Lay’s raped us. Date rape can be a crime, a misunderstanding, or buyer’s remorse (see also Farrell 1986).

[Solutions to Date Rape and Stranger Rape. Since men rape, is it not really the man’s role that needs changing?

[The problem is both sexes’ roles: It is both sexes’ roles together which create the following four factors that make rape a predictable possible outgrowth of male-female relationships in most cultures (see also Kammer 1994; Levin 1988).

[Some feminists are now expanding the definitions of rape to “unwanted sexual activity.” Yet, the Journal of Sex Research reported the findings that 63% of the men and 46% of the women said they had experienced unwanted intercourse (Muehlenhard & Cook 1988). (For example, a man sometimes fears intercourse when he feels a woman will read into it more of a commitment than he wants.) By feminist definitions of rape as unwanted sex or unwanted intercourse, most men have been raped—and that’s how rape begins to look like an epidemic. It is also how rape gets trivialized.

[In Conclusion. To go from the old “male pursue/female resist” to the feminist “male pursue/female sue” is not progress, but just the latest method of getting men to jump through brand-new hoops for the same old sex.

[Men will be our rapists as long as men are our initiators. Men will rape as long as the four factors leading to rape are part of our two-sex socialization. The solution lies in updating the dance—in women and men sharing responsibilities for the direct initiative-taking and paying for dates—in communication, not litigation or criminalization.

[Sexual harassment and date rape are perfect metaphors for some of the most important challenges of the 21st century: the challenge to the stereotype of “innocent woman/guilty man”; the challenge to keep male-female sexual contact flexible and fluid rather than petrified and paralyzed; the challenge to respond to sexual nuance more with communication and less with legislation—understanding that communication at least responds to nuance with nuance, while legislation responds to nuance with rigidity; and the challenge to our genetic heritage of protecting women—and therefore infantilizing women.

[If we really want to protect people from being hurt, we would have to make laws against love, and against marriage, automobiles, and gossip. The only way we can prevent people from being hurt is to prevent them from living. If we desire to protect men from hurt, we would have to outlaw women’s sexual rejection of men.

[The answers we develop cannot emerge from feminism-in-isolation, but from both sexes helping each other reweave the tapestry that has been passed from one generation to the next over the centuries for purposes that were functional then, but dysfunctional now (see also Sommers 1994; Steele 1990). Only then will we make a transition from a woman’s movement versus a men’s movement to a gender transition movement—from gender war to gender love.

[Additional resources on the Web are available at: American Coalition for Fathers and Children: www.acfc.org; Children’s Rights Council: www.vix.com.crc; Everyman: www.everyman.org; Independent Women’s Forum: www.iwf.org; National Coalition of Free Men: www.ncfm.org; National Congress for Fathers & Children: www.ncfc.org; and Dr. Warren Farrell: www.warrenfarrell.com. (End of update by W. Farrell)]

[Heterophobia: The Evolution of an Idea

RAYMOND J. NOONAN

[Update 2003: The term heterophobia is, perhaps, only about two decades old—a much shorter period than its more familiar sibling, homophobia, which Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary dates to 1958. Still, the value of heterophobia as a concept appears to be largely unrecognized among many, if not most, American sexologists today as sexual science and philosophy advances into the new millennium. Is heterophobia just another example of the me-too victimology that continues to grow and flourish in contemporary America? Or is there more to it from which students of sexology and the general public can learn?

[Webster’s defines homophobia simply as the “irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals” (p. 578); the term heterophobia, however, does not appear at all. It does appear in Francoeur, Perper, & Cornog’s 1995 Complete Dictionary of Sexology, where they define it similarly as a fear of heterosexuals, although they do not use the “irrational” component. Heterophobia also appears among the myriad other terms for various phobias in some of the comprehensive lists of phobias published on the World Wide Web. In a non-sex-related context, it has also been defined as a fear of things different (such as other cultures).

[Heterophobia appeared for the first time in the 1982 book, The Anatomy of Freedom, by the well-known feminist, Robin Morgan. In the sexological literature, heterophobia first seems to have appeared in print in a 1990 chapter by Edward W. Eichel in the controversial book Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, in which he devoted the chapter to the “new” concept of “heterophobia,” although I recall having heard and thought about it in the early 1980s. Eichel defined it similarly to Francoeur et al.’s definition in their Dictionary. In 1996, Raymond J. Noonan, this author, discussed the term in one of his chapters in the book, Does Anyone Still Remember When Sex Was Fun? in which he equated it more with the general antisexualism of American culture. He broadened the definition and used it more as a synonym for this generalized sex-negativity that has crystallized around heterosexual behavior—particularly against heterosexual males—and especially against heterosexual intercourse (see Noonan, 1996a, 1997, 1998a). In that book, he also introduced the concept of “internalized heterophobia.” Later, he suggested that homophobia was, in fact, partially enabled and empowered by heterophobia, as the significant impetus for the hostility is probably more often from the “sexual” root of homosexual than on the “homo” prefix, which incites only slightly more, overall. Still, some of the fuel for heterophobia may also be rooted in the current misandrist sentiments that have become more prevalent in some quarters of American society in recent years. Misandry, of course, may or may not be in reaction to misogyny, which appears to have become somewhat less prevalent.

[In late 1998, however, heterophobia appeared for the first time in the title of a book—the first comprehensive treatment of the subject by anyone inside or outside of sexology. In Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism, Daphne Patai tied the concept to what she called the Sexual Harassment Industry (SHI), which was being used, she argued, to separate men and women for often personal or political gain or self-interest. She defined heterophobia as the “fear of, and antagonism toward, the Other—in the present context men in general—and toward heterosexuality in particular” (p. 5). She went on to document how this hostility, which “is not limited to the lunatic feminist fringe where it originated in the late 1960s” (p. 14), was being implemented by the expansion of sexual harassment indoctrination sessions and laws.

[More recently, it is interesting to note that Meignant, et al., the authors of the entry on France in this volume of the Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality, have selected heterophobia as the term to describe their conception of a heterosexuality-heterophobia scale, positing that it is heterophobia that is the opposite of heterosexuality and not homosexuality at the other end of Kinsey’s continuum. Their model includes a separate homosexuality-homophobia scale conceived as opposites as well. I would be more inclined to consider as more accurate a heterophobia-heterophilia scale, as well as a homophobia-homophilia scale, based solely on the traditional contrast inherent in the meanings of the Greek roots. Also, most sexologists consider Kinsey’s scale to be a continuum, and not a description of opposites. In addition, as heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality have begun to be seen as multidimensional, Kinsey’s scale has been increasingly applied to each dimension, resulting in a non-integer composite score, not necessarily congruent across all dimensions.

[Thus, the term is confusing for many people for several reasons. On the one hand, some look at it as just another of the many me-too social constructions that have arisen in the pseudoscience of victimology in recent decades. (Many of us recall John Money’s 1995 criticism of the ascendancy of victimology and its negative impact on sexual science, which is recommended reading for insights into the history of the problem.) Others look at the parallelism between heterophobia and homophobia, and suggest that the former trivializes the latter. Yet, heterophobia may be one of the root contributors in the etiology of homophobia, as noted earlier. For others, it is merely a curiosity or parallel-construction word game. But for others still, it is part of both the recognition and politicization of heterosexuals’ cultural interests in contrast to those of gays—particularly where those interests are perceived to clash.

[Indeed, the last sense parallels the use of homophobia as a political epithet to stigmatize those who are opposed to gay lifestyles regardless of their reasons—suggesting that religious or moral opposition, for example, is based on mental illness. Increasingly, some writers have argued for a more-descriptive term, such as homonegativity, that does not rely on quasi-scientific ambiguity based on an etymological relationship with the psychological concept of phobia. Its heterosexual counterpart would then be heteronegativity. Both may be conceptualized as internalized as well.

[As such, recognition of the impact of heterophobia on sexual health, research, and education in American culture is on the cutting edge of contemporary sexology. In effect, heterophobia has become an unacknowledged—and often unmentionable—force that influences public policy, as well as sexual science, and, in silent alliance with conservative religious and other social forces, determines how sexual issues as a whole are studied or not studied—as well as how sexual lives are lived by women and men and their relationships together—in contemporary American society. (End of update by R. J. Noonan)]

General Summary of Social Factors

PATRICIA BARTHALOW KOCH

This discussion of social factors influencing sexuality in the U.S.A. has selectively focused on religion, race/ethnicity, and gender. Essentially, we have taken the view that such social variables exert influence largely through membership in corresponding social groups. Our review examined the general tradition of the Judeo-Christian heritage of the U.S.A., membership in the Mormon church and the reemergence of “sacred sexuality,” African-American, Latino, and Native American minority groups, identification with feminist and men’s perspectives, and heterophobia as specific examples.

We recognize that this approach omits other important social factors, such as education, social class, and size of city of residence. Our purpose has not been to provide an exhaustive review of all pertinent social groups within the U.S.A. Rather, we wished to demonstrate the abundant evidence that a full understanding of sexuality in American culture eventually will require a recognition of the diverse social groups that reside in this nation. As we proceed to examine what sexuality researchers have learned about specific forms of sexual attitudes and behavior, the authors will report, where possible, the results of research which documents an association between sexuality and social variables.

Unfortunately, a recognition of these associations has not always been incorporated into investigations of sexual practices. For example, much of the existing research has been conducted with predominantly white, middle-class, college-educated populations. Researchers have frequently failed to adequately describe the demographic characteristics of their samples, and they have often failed to test possible correlations with social variables. One consequence is that American sexual scientists have yet to develop a full understanding of the very diversity of social groups we have tried to describe. Closing such gaps in our knowledge remains one of the principle tasks of sexual science in the United States.

3. Knowledge and Education about Sexuality

PATRICIA BARTHALOW KOCH

According to the National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education,

Sexuality education is a lifelong process of acquiring information and forming attitudes, beliefs, and values about identity, relationships, and intimacy. It encompasses sexual development, reproductive health, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy, body image, and gender roles [among other topics]. Sexuality education seeks to assist children [people] in understanding a positive view of sexuality, provide them with information and skills about taking care of their sexual health, and help them to acquire skills to make decisions now and in the future. (SIECUS 1992)

A. A Brief History of American Sexuality Education

Sexuality education in the United States has always been marked by tension between maintaining the status quo of the “acceptable” expression of individual sexuality, and change as precipitated by the economic, social, and political events of the time. The major loci for sexuality education have shifted from the family and the community (in earlier times being more influenced by religion, and in modern times, by consumerism and the media), to schools. Much of the education has been developed by and targeted towards middle-class whites. As will be described in more detail, the two major movements to formalize sexuality education in the United States were spearheaded for the advancement of either “social protection” or “social justice.” Throughout history, the goals, content, and methodologies of sexuality education in these two movements have often been in opposition to one another.

According to D’Emilio and Freedman (1988), young people in colonial America learned about sexuality through two primary mechanisms. In these agrarian communities, observation of sexual activity among animals was common. Observation of sexual activity among adults was also common, since families lived in small, often-unpartitioned dwellings, where it was not unusual for adults and children to sleep together. Second, more formal moral instruction about the role of sexuality in people’s lives came from parents and clergy, with lawmakers endorsing the religious doctrines. The major message was that sexual activity ought to be limited to marriage and aimed at procreation. However, within the marital relationship, both the man and woman were entitled to experience pleasure during the procreative act.

Ministers throughout the colonies invoked biblical injunctions against extramarital and nonprocreative sexual acts, while colonial statutes in both New England and the Chesapeake area outlawed fornication, rape, sodomy, adultery, and sometimes incest, prescribing corporal or capital punishment, fines, and in some cases, banishment for sexual transgressors. Together, these moral authorities attempted to socialize youth to channel sexual desires toward marriage (D’Emilio & Freedmen 1988, 18).

A small minority of colonists also were exposed to a limited number of gynecological and medical-advice texts from London. These underscored the primary goal of sexuality as reproduction, with pleasure only to be associated with this goal.

After the War for American Independence, small autonomous rural communities gave way to more-commercialized areas, and church and state regulation of morality began to decline. Individual responsibility and choice became more emphasized. Thus, instruction on sexuality changed from community (external) control to individual (internal) control. For example, between the 1830s and 1870s, information about contraceptive devices and abortion techniques circulated widely through printed matter (pamphlets, circulars, and books) and lectures. However, peer education was the primary source of sexuality education, with more-“educated” people, especially women, passing along their knowledge to friends and family members.

Increasing secularization and the rise of the medical profession spawned a health-reform movement in the 1830s that emphasized a quest for physical, as well as spiritual, perfection. With advances in publishing and literacy, a prolific sexual-advice literature, written by doctors and health reformers of both genders, emerged. The central message was that, for bodily well-being (as well as economic success), men and women had to control and channel their sexual desires toward procreative, marital relations. “Properly channeled, experts claimed, sexual relations promised to contribute to individual health, marital intimacy, and even spiritual joy” (D’Emilio & Freedman 1988, 72). The popularity of these materials demonstrated Americans’ need for and interest in sexuality education. Much of the self-help and medical-advice literature directed at men emphasized the dangers of masturbation. Women were taught that they had less sexual passion than men, and their role was to help men to control their sexual drives. In other words, a standard of female “purity” was the major theme of the sexuality education of the time.

Two studies of women’s sexuality conducted in the early 1900s provide insight into the sources of sexual information for women during the 19th century. Katharine B. Davis (1929) studied 1,000 women (three quarters born before 1890) and Dr. Clelia Mosher (1980) surveyed 45 women (four fifths born between 1850 and 1880). Over 40% of the women in Davis’ study and half in Mosher’s reported that they received less-than-adequate instruction about sex before marriage. Those who indicated that they had received some sexual information identified Alice Stockham’s advice manual, Tokology, about pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing as their chief source.

In the later 19th century, a combined health and social-reform movement developed that attempted to control the content of and access to sexuality education. Middle-class reformers organized voluntary associations, such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), to address issues, including prostitution and obscenity. The social-purity movement in the late 19th century added the demand for female equality and a single sexual standard to the earlier moral-reform movements. The WCTU spearheaded a sex-education campaign through the White Cross to help men resist sexual temptation. Social-purity leaders authored marital advice books that recognized women’s sexual desires and stressed that women could enjoy intercourse only if they really wanted it. Women’s rights and social-purity advocates issued the first formal call for sex education in America. They argued that women should teach children about sex: “Show your sons and daughters the sanctities and the terrors of this awful power of sex, its capacities to bless or curse its owner” (D’Emilio & Freedman 1988, 155). They demanded a public discourse of sexuality that emphasized love and reproductive responsibility rather than lust.

An example of the restricted character of sexuality education at the time was the enactment of the 1873 “Comstock Law” for the “Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use.” This revision of the federal postal law forbade the mailing of information or advertisements about contraception and abortion, as well as any material about sexuality. The Comstock Law was in effect until being overturned by a federal appeals court in 1936 in a decision about contraception: United States v. Dow Package.

Yet, the turn of the 19th century ushered in a more “progressive” era fueled by industrial capitalism. Progressive reform provoked by the middle class called upon government and social institutions, including schools, to intervene in social and economic issues, such as sex education. One of the major movements for sex education was the social-hygiene movement spearheaded by Dr. Prince Morrow to prevent the spread of syphilis and gonorrhea. In 1905, he formed the Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis in New York City, later renamed the American Social Hygiene Association. This society was joined by the WCTU, YMCA, state boards of health, and the National Education Association in an “unrelenting campaign of education to wipe out the ignorance and the prejudices that allowed venereal diseases to infect the nation” (D’Emilio & Freedman 1988, 205). They held public meetings and conferences, published and distributed written materials, and endorsed sex education in the public schools. While insisting on frank and open discussions of sexual-health matters, they promulgated the traditional emphasis of sexuality in marriage for reproductive purposes and the avoidance of erotic temptation (like masturbation). More-conservative Americans considered such openness to be offensive. Former-President Howard Taft described sex education as “full of danger if carried on in general public schools” (D’Emilio & Freedman 1988, 207). Others considered this type of education to be too restrictive. For example, Maurice Bigelow, Professor of Biology at Columbia University Teachers’ College, objected to the terms “sex” and “reproduction” being used synonymously. Not until after 1920 would these activists see any progress towards the goal of having some basic sex (reproductive) instruction integrated into any school curriculum.

The early 1900s found American minds being expanded by the writings of Sigmund Freud and Havelock Ellis, among others. These psychologists helped popularize the notion of sexuality as a marker of self-identity and a force permeating one’s life, which, if repressed, risks negative consequences. In addition, socialist and feminist ideologies and the industrial economy created an environment fertile for the demand of birth-control information and services. These events spearheaded the second major movement for sexuality education, which was based on social-justice issues, particularly for women and the poor.

In 1912, Margaret Sanger began a series of articles on female sexuality for a New York newspaper, which was confiscated by postal officials for violating the Comstock antiobscenity law. Later, to challenge the constitutionality of this law, she published her own magazine, The Woman Rebel, filled with information about birth control. She was charged with nine counts of violating the law, with a penalty of 45 years in prison, after writing and distributing a pamphlet, Family Limitation. To avoid prosecution, she fled to Europe; but in her absence, efforts mounted to distribute birth-control information. By early 1915, activists had distributed over 100,000 copies of Family Limitation, and a movement for community sexuality education was solidified. Public sentiment in favor of the right to such information was so strong that charges were dropped against Sanger when she returned to America. Community education about and access to birth control, particularly for middle-class women, began to become accepted, if not expected, as a matter of public health, as well as an issue of female equality (social justice).

Premarital experience became a more-common form of sexuality education among the white middle-class, beginning in the 1920s and accelerating as youth became more autonomous from their families (through automobiles, attendance at college, participation in more leisure activities like movies, and war experiences). Dating, necking, and petting among young peers became a norm. “Where adults might see flagrantly loose behavior, young people themselves had constructed a set of norms that regulated their activity while allowing the accumulation of experience and sexual learning” (D’Emilio & Freedman 1988, 261).

Courses on marriage and the family and (sexual) hygiene were being introduced into the college curriculum. Marriage manuals began to emphasize sexual expression and pleasure, rather than sexual control and reproduction, with more-explicit instructions as to how to achieve satisfying sexual relationships (such as “foreplay” and “simultaneous orgasm”). By the end of the 1930s, many marriage manuals were focusing on sexual “techniques.” In addition, scientific reports, such as Sexual Behavior in the Human Male by Alfred Kinsey and his associates (1948) and the corresponding Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), were major popular works primarily read by the middle class. These books provided sexuality education about the types and frequencies of various sexual expressions among white Americans to more than a quarter of a million people. They also are considered landmarks in sexuality education:

What they [Americans] have learned and will learn may have a tremendous effect on the future social history of mankind. For they [Kinsey and colleagues] are presenting facts. They are revealing not what should be, but what is. For the first time, data on human sex behavior is entirely separated from questions of philosophy, moral values, and social customs. (D’Emilio & Freedman 1988, 286)

As scientific information on sexuality became readily available to the American public, more-explicit presentation of sexual material in printed and audiovisual media became possible through the courts’ decisions narrowing the definition of obscenity. The proliferation of such sexually explicit materials was encouraged by the expansion of the consumer-oriented economy. For example, advertising was developing into a major industry beginning in the 1920s. Sex was used to sell everything from cars to toothpaste. Gender-role education, in particular, was an indirect outcome of the advertising media. A “paperback revolution” began in 1939, placing affordable materials, such as “romance novels,” in drugstores and newsstands all over the country.

In December 1953, Hugh Hefner published the first issue of Playboy, whose trademark was a female “Playmate of the Month” displayed in a glossy nude centerfold. The early Playboy philosophy suggested males should “enjoy the pleasures the female has to offer without becoming emotionally involved” (D’Emilio & Freedman 1988, 302). By the end of the 1950s, Playboy had a circulation of one million, with the readership peaking at six million by the early 1970s. Many a man identified Playboy as his first, and perhaps most influential, source of sex education.

By the 1970s, sex manuals had taken the place of marital advice manuals. Popular books, like the 1972 Joy of Sex by Dr. Alex Comfort, encouraged sexual experimentation by illustrating sexual techniques. Sexual references became even more prolific in the mainstream media. For example, the ratio of sexual references per page tripled between 1950 and 1980 in magazines, including Reader’s Digest, Time, and Newsweek. In addition, Masters and Johnson’s groundbreaking book, Human Sexual Response, emphasizing that women’s sexual desires and responses were equal to those of men, was published in 1966. The media were influencing Americans—female and male, married and single—to consider sexual pleasure as a legitimate, necessary component of their lives.

Yet, even with the explicit and abundant presentation of sexuality in the popular media, parents were still not likely to provide sexuality education to their children, nor were the schools.

In 1964, a lawyer, a sociologist, a clergyman, a family life educator, a public health educator, and a physician came together to form the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). SIECUS is a nonprofit voluntary health organization with the aim to help people understand, appreciate, and use their sexuality in a responsible and informed manner. Dr. Mary Calderone was a co-founder and the first executive director. SIECUS soon became known all over the country as a source of information on human sexuality and sex education.

This private initiative for sexuality education was followed by a governmental one in 1966 when the Office of Education of the federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare announced its newly developed policy supporting

family life and sex education as an integral part of the curriculum from preschool to college and adult levels; it will support training for teachers . . . it will aid programs designed to help parents . . . it will support research and development in all aspects of family life and sex education. (Haffner 1989, 1)

In 1967, a membership organization, first called the American Association of Sex Educators and Counselors, was formed to bring together professionals from all disciplines who were teaching and counseling about human sexuality. The organization later expanded to include therapists, and is known today as the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT). Opposition to sexuality education from conservative political and religious groups grew quickly. In 1968, the Christian Crusade published, “Is the Schoolhouse the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?” and the John Birch Society was calling sex education a “Communist plot.” In response, over 150 public leaders joined the National Committee for Responsible Family Life and Sex Education.

In 1970, Maryland became the first state to mandate family-life and human-development education at all levels in their public schools. However, the new “purity” movement by conservatives was under way, coordinating over 300 organizations throughout the country to oppose sex education in the public schools. Several states passed antisexuality-education mandates, with Louisiana barring sex education altogether in 1968. By the late 1970s, only half-a-dozen states had mandated sex education into their schools, and implementation in the local classrooms was limited.

In 1972, AASECT began developing training standards and competency criteria for certification of sexuality educators, counselors, and therapists. A list of the professionals who have become certified in these three areas is provided in a published register so that other professionals and consumers can locate people who are trained. (Currently, this list identifies over 1,000 certified professionals.) AASECT also has developed a code of ethics for professionals working in these fields.

In 1979, the federal government through the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare conducted a national analysis of sex-education programs in the United States. The researchers calculated that less than 10% of all students were receiving instruction about sexuality in their high schools. The report’s overall conclusion stated:

Comprehensive programs must include far more than discussions of reproduction. They should cover other topics such as contraception, numerous sexual activities, the emotional and social aspects of sexual activity, values clarification, and decision-making and communication skills. In addition to being concerned with the imparting of knowledge, they should also focus on the clarifying of values, the raising of self-esteem, and the developing of personal and social skills. These tasks clearly require that sex education topics be covered in many courses in many grades. (Kirby, Atter, & Scales 1979, 1)

When AIDS burst upon the scene in the 1980s, education with the goal of “social protection” from this deadly disease was targeted for inclusion in public-school curricula. In a relatively short time, most states came to require, or at least recommend, that AIDS education be included in school curricula. The number of states mandating or recommending AIDS education surpassed those mandating or recommending sexuality education. Money and other resources were being infused into AIDS-education initiatives. For example, in 1987-88, 80% of the $6.3 million spent nationwide on sexuality education went specifically to AIDS-education efforts. Today, policies and curricula addressing AIDS tend to be much more specific and detailed than those dealing with other aspects of sexuality education, including pregnancy prevention. This may lead to students receiving a narrow and negative view of human sexuality (e.g., “sex kills!”).

Throughout this time, SIECUS remained committed to comprehensive sexuality education, as emphasized in its mission statement: “SIECUS affirms that sexuality is a natural and healthy part of living and advocates the right of individuals to make responsible sexual choices. SIECUS develops, collects, and disseminates information and promotes comprehensive education about sexuality” (Haffner 1989, 4). In 1989, SIECUS convened a national colloquium on the future of sexuality education, “Sex Education 2000,” to which 65 national organizations sent representatives. The mission was to assure that all children and youth receive comprehensive sexuality education by the year 2000. Thirteen specific goals for the year 2000 were set forth as follows:

To aid in the attainment of the third goal of providing comprehensive sexuality education in the schools, a national Task Force with SIECUS’s leadership published Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, Kindergarten Through 12th Grade in 1991. These guidelines, based on six key concepts, provide a framework to create new sexuality-education programs or improve existing ones. The guidelines are based on values related to human sexuality that reflect the beliefs of most communities in a pluralistic society. They represent a starting point for curriculum development at the local level. Currently, another Task Force is working on ways to help providers of preschool education incorporate the beginnings of comprehensive sexuality education into their programs. In 1994, SIECUS also launched an international initiative in order to disseminate information on comprehensive sexuality education to the international community and to aid in the development of specific international efforts in this area.

Yet, in light of progress that has been made, challenges to sexuality programs from conservative organizations have become more frequent, more organized, and more successful than ever before (Sedway 1992). These nationally organized groups, including Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, and Citizens for Excellence in Education, target local school programs that do not conform to their specific ideology. They attempt to control what others can read or learn, not just in sexuality education (which now is the major target), but in all areas of public education, including science (with the teaching of creationism), history, and literature (with censorship of many classics in children’s literature). Although these groups represent a minority of parents in a school district, through well-organized national support, they often effectively use a variety of intimidating tactics to prevent the establishment of sexuality-education programs altogether or establish abstinence-only ones. Their tactics include personal attacks on persons supporting comprehensive sexuality education, threatening and sometimes pursuing costly litigation against school districts, and flooding school boards with misinformation, among other strategies. The greater impact of this anti-sexuality-education campaign on education, in general, and American society, overall, has been poignantly described:

In another sense, the continuing series of attacks aimed at public education must be viewed in the context of the larger battle—what has come to be known as a “Cultural Civil War”—over free expression. Motion pictures, television programs, fine art, music lyrics, and even political speech have all come under assault in recent years from many of the same religious right leaders behind attacks on school programs. In the vast majority of cases, in the schools and out, challengers generally seek the same remedy, i.e., to restrict what others can see, hear, or read. At stake in attacks on schoolbooks and programs is students’ exposure to a broad spectrum of ideas in the classroom—in essence, their freedom to learn. And when the freedom to learn is threatened in sexuality education, students are denied information that can save their lives. (Sedway 1992, 13-14)

B. Current Status of Sexuality Education

Youth-Serving Agencies

National youth-serving agencies (YSAs) in the United States provide sexuality education to over two million youths each year. Over the past two decades, YSAs began developing such programs, primarily in response to the problems of adolescent pregnancy and HIV/AIDS.

Second only to schools in the number of youth they serve, youth-serving agencies are excellent providers of sexuality education programs, both because they work with large numbers of youth, including many underserved youth, and because they provide an environment that is informal and conducive to creative and experiential learning. Some YSAs reach youth who have dropped out of school. Others reach youth who have not received sexuality education programs in their schools. The people who work at YSAs often build close relationships with the youth in their programs which allows for better communication and more effective educational efforts. (Dietz 1989/1990, 16)

For example, the American Red Cross reaches over one million youth each year in the U.S. with their “AIDS Prevention Program,” “Black Youth Project,” and “AIDS Prevention Program for Hispanic Youth and Families.” The Boys Clubs of America has developed a substance abuse/pregnancy prevention program, called “Smart Moves.” The Girls Clubs of America has a primary commitment to providing health promotion, sexuality education, and pregnancy-prevention services to its members and reaches over 200,000 youth each year. The Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. developed a curriculum, “Decision for Your Life: Preventing Teenage Pregnancy,” that focuses on the consequences of teen parenthood and the development of communication, decision-making, assertiveness, and values-clarification skills. The March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation developed the “Project Alpha” sexuality-education program that explores teenage pregnancy from the male perspective and helps young men learn how to take more responsibility. The National Network of Runaway and Youth Services has developed an HIV/AIDS education program for high-risk youth, called “Safe Choices.” The program provides training for staff at runaway shelters, residential treatment facilities, detention facilities, group homes, street outreach programs, hotlines, foster-family programs, and other agencies that serve high-risk youth.

In addition to the national efforts of YSAs, many local affiliates have designed their own programs to meet the needs of their local communities in culturally sensitive ways. For example, the National 4-H Council estimates that most state extension offices have developed their own programs to reduce teenage pregnancy in their areas.

Schools

More than 85% of the American public approve of sexuality education being provided in the schools, compared with 76% in 1975 and 69% in 1965 (Kenney, Guardado, & Brown 1989). Today, roughly 60% of teenagers receive at least some sex education in their schools, although only a third receive a somewhat “comprehensive” program.

Each state can mandate or require that sexuality education and/or AIDS education be provided in the local school districts. Short of mandating such educational programs, states may simply recommend that the school districts within their boundaries offer education on sexuality, in general, and/or more-specific AIDS education. In 1992, 17 states had mandated sexuality education and 30 more recommended it; see Table 7 (Haffner 1992). In addition, 34 states had mandated AIDS education, while 14 more recommended it. Only four states (Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Wyoming) had no position on sexuality education within their schools, whereas Ohio, Wyoming, and Tennessee had no position on AIDS education. In 1995, NARAL and the NARAL Foundation (1995) issued a detailed state-by-state review of sexuality education in America with selected details of legislative action in 1994 and 1995.

Although the majority of states either mandate or recommend sexuality and AIDS education, this does not guarantee that local school districts are implementing the suggested curricula. Inconsistencies in and lack of implementation of these curricula result from: absence of provisions for mandate enforcement, lax regulations regarding compliance, diversity in program objectives, restrictions on course content, lack of provisions for teacher training, and insufficient evaluation.

In 1988, SIECUS conducted a project to examine and evaluate the recommended state sexuality and AIDS-education curricula (di Mauro 1989-90). Of the 23 state curricula that they evaluated for sexuality education, only 22% were deemed to be accurate. Although most curricula stated that human sexuality is natural and positive, there was a lack of any content in the curricula to support this concept. Most focused on the negative consequences of sexual interaction, and little attention was paid to the psychosocial dimensions of sexuality, such as gender identification and roles, sexual functioning and satisfaction, or values and ethics. Only one half of the curricula provided thorough information about birth control.

In an evaluation of the 34 state-recommended AIDS-education curricula, 32% were found to be accurate in basic concepts and presentation. The majority (85%) emphasized abstinence and “just say no” skills, whereas only 9% covered safer sex as a preventive practice. Thorough information about condoms was provided in less than 10% of the curricula. There was no mention of homosexuality in over one third of the curricula. In 38%, homosexuals were identified as the “cause of AIDS.” The Utah curriculum was especially negative and restrictive:

Utah’s teachers are not free to discuss the “intricacies of intercourse, sexual stimulation, erotic behavior”; the acceptance of or advocacy of homosexuality as a desirable or acceptable sexual adjustment or lifestyle; the advocacy or encouragement of contraceptive methods or devices by unmarried minors; and the acceptance or advocacy of “free sex,” promiscuity, or the so-called “new morality.” This section of their curriculum is replete with warnings of legal violations for instructors crossing prohibition lines; their guidelines indicate that with parental consent it is possible to discuss condom use at any grade level, but without it, such discussions are Class B misdemeanors. (di Mauro 1989-90, 6; see also the discussion of Mormon sexuality in Section 2A.)

Currently, a broad focus on sexuality education is being supplanted by a narrow focus on AIDS education. Sexuality and AIDS education are being treated independently with separate curricula and teacher training. The report concluded that: “What is needed [for each state] is a comprehensive sexuality education or family-life education curriculum with an extensive AIDS education component that contextualizes preventive information within a positive, life-affirming approach to human sexuality” (di Mauro 1989-90, 6).

Yet, recommended curriculum content cannot automatically be equated with what is actually being taught in the classroom. To determine what is being taught, a study of public school teachers in five specialty areas (health education, biology, home economics, physical education, and school nursing) in grades 7 through 12 was conducted (Forrest & Silverman 1989). It was estimated that, nationwide, 50,000 public school teachers were providing some type of sexuality education in grades 7 through 12 in 1987-88, representing 45% of the teachers employed in those areas. Roughly 38.7 hours of sex education were being offered in grades 7 through 12, with 5.0 hours devoted to birth control and 5.9 hours covering STDs.

The teachers cited the encouragement of abstinence as one of their primary goals. The messages that they most want to give included: responsibility regarding sexual relationships and parenthood, the importance of abstinence and ways of resisting pressures to become sexually active, and information on AIDS and other STDs. The teachers agreed that sexuality education belongs in the schools and that students should be taught to examine and develop their own values about sexual behaviors. They reported that there is often a gap between what should be taught, and when and what actually is allowed to be taught. The largest gap concerned sources of birth-control methods; 97% of the teachers believed they should be allowed to provide information to students about where they could access birth control, but this was allowed in less than half of their schools. In fact, one quarter of the teachers were permitted to discuss birth control with students only when they are asked a student-initiated question. In addition, over 90% of the teachers believed that their students should be taught about homosexuality and abortion, topics that are often restricted by school districts. In addition, the teachers believed that the wide range of sexuality topics should be addressed with students no later than 7th or 8th grade; however, this is not usually done until 10th through 12th grades, if at all.

The teachers described many barriers to implementing quality sexuality education in their classrooms. The major problem that they identified was opposition or lack of support from parents, the community, or school administrators. They also felt that they lacked appropriate materials because of the difficulties in getting current relevant materials approved for use. They also encountered student-related barriers, such as discomfort, lack of basic knowledge of anatomy and physiology, and misinformation, poor attitudes, and a lack of values and morals reflecting favorable attitudes toward teen pregnancy. Teachers also lacked enough time and training to teach the material effectively. Almost none of them were certified as sexuality or family-life educators by the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists or the National Council on Family Relations. The level of the teachers’ own knowledge on sexual topics was questionable, and some experienced personal conflicts in dealing with certain issues. The authors concluded that:

Perhaps the most important step toward improved sex education would be increased, clear support of the teachers. One form this support should take is the development of curricula that provide teachers with constructive, planned ways to raise and deal with the topics on their students’ minds, since the data indicate that students will often raise topics even if they are not in the curriculum. Greater support should also help increase the availability of high-quality instructional materials and on-going education and information for teachers. Adequate teaching materials and support for teaching in earlier grades the topics students want to know about might help solve the problem of student inattention and negative reactions, to say nothing of helping with the problems of teenage pregnancy and the spread of AIDS and other STDs. (Forrest & Silverman 1989, 72)

Yet, in recent years, well-organized conservative organizations throughout the United States have been promoting the adoption of their own abstinence-only curricula in the public schools. Since 1985, the Illinois Committee on the Status of Women has received $1.7 million in state and federal funds to promote such a curriculum, called Sex Respect. They have been successful in having Sex Respect adopted in over 1,600 school systems, even though this curriculum is designed to proselytize a particular conservative sexual-value system. The Sex Respect curriculum has been criticized because it:

(1) substitutes biased opinion for fact; (2) conveys insufficient and inaccurate information; (3) relies on scare tactics; (4) ignores realities of life for many students; (5) reinforces gender stereotypes; (6) lacks respect for cultural and economic differences; (7) presents one side of controversial issues; (8) fails to meaningfully involve parents; [and] (9) is marketed using inadequate evaluations. (Trudell & Whatley 1991, 125)

Careful scientific evaluation of over 40 sexuality- and AIDS-education curricula commissioned separately by the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization resulted in the following conclusions:

[Abstinence-Only Sexuality Education

PATRICIA BARTHALOW KOCH

[Update 1998: Under the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, funds were made available to the states to establish programs that have as their “exclusive purpose” the “promotion of abstinence-only education.” Funding of $50 million a year is guaranteed for these programs for the next five years. To qualify for a federal grant, a state abstinence-only program must teach:

[All 50 states have submitted abstinence-only education proposals; many of them are school-based. Yet, national and worldwide research have found abstinence-only programs to be considerably less effective, if effective at all, when compared with comprehensive sexuality education programs, in preventing unintended pregnancy and STDs among youth (Brick & Roffman 1993; Nelson 1996). Yet, no federal funding is forthcoming to support comprehensive sexuality education.

[It is safe to predict that the trend of increasing sexual experience among adolescents will continue, and that young people will not respond favorably to these abstinence-only programs. Perhaps when the general public realizes the ineffectiveness of these programs, greater support for and expansion of more comprehensive sexuality education will result. (End of update by P. B. Koch)]

C. Informal Sources of Sexual Knowledge

Researchers over the past 50 years have consistently found that adolescents identify peers, particularly of their same gender, as their primary source of sexuality education, followed by various types of media, including print and visual media. Parents and schools are usually identified as significantly less-influential sources.

Peers as a Sexual Information Source

Males seem to be more dependent on peers for their sexuality education than are females. One problematic aspect of receiving sexuality education informally from peers is that the information they provide is often inaccurate. However, when peers are formally trained to provide sexuality education, such as on the high school or college level, they are very effective in providing information and encouraging the development of positive attitudes towards responsible and healthy sexual expression. Thus, the peer model is being used more widely in school and community sexuality-education programs.

The Media

The various media are pervasive and influential sources of sexuality education in American culture. Media have been identified by adolescents and college students as being more influential than their families in the development of their sexual attitudes and behaviors. As to television, the radio, and movies, adolescents spend more time being entertained by the media than any other activity, perhaps with the exception of sleeping (Haffner & Kelly 1987).

Television, in particular, has been identified as the most influential source of sexual messages in American society, even though sexual behavior is not explicitly depicted. Yet, in an analysis of the sexual content of prime-time television programming, about 20,000 scenes of suggested sexual intercourse and other behaviors, and sexual comments and innuendos were documented in one year (Haffner & Kelly 1987). These portrayals of sexual interaction are six times more likely to happen in an extramarital, rather than a marital, relationship. In soap operas, 94% of the sexual encounters happen between people who are not married to one another. Minority groups are extremely underrepresented on TV, with gay and lesbian characters nearly nonexistent.

In the United States, by the time a child graduates from high school, she or he will have spent more time watching TV than being in a formal classroom setting. There is conflicting evidence as to the impact media portrayals have on youth’s developing sexuality (Haffner & Kelly 1987). Gender-role stereotyping is a pervasive aspect of television programming, with children who watch more TV demonstrating more stereotypic gender-role behaviors than those who watch less. Some studies have linked young people’s television-viewing habits, including the watching of music videos, to the likelihood that they would engage in sexual intercourse, while others have not supported this relationship. Yet, there is no denying that TV serves as a sexuality educator. Adolescents report that TV is equally or more encouraging about engaging in sexual intercourse than are their friends, and those that have high TV-viewing habits are likely to be dissatisfied about remaining virgins. In addition, those who believe that TV accurately portrays sexual experiences are more likely to be dissatisfied with their own.

Soap operas are one of the most popular television genres. Depictions of sexual behaviors are common. Yet, television censors still establish rules, such as not showing unbuttoning clothes or the characters at the moment of “penetration.” Unfortunately, very few references to or depictions of safer sex are part of television programs. As the National Academy of Sciences concluded, the media provide “young people with lots of clues about how to be sexy, but . . . little information about how to be sexually responsible” (Haffner & Kelly 1987, 9).

Sexuality has become a focal point of some newer types of television programming. Sexual topics, such as teenage pregnancy, incest, or AIDS, are often the subject matter of made-for-TV movies and “after-school specials.” In addition, the “sexually unconventional,” such as transvestites, sex addicts, or bigamists, are often the guests of television talk shows, such as Donahue, Oprah, and Geraldo. Some critics believe that this diversity has encouraged viewers to become more tolerant and open, whereas others believe it has done the opposite, reinforcing negative and hostile attitudes. Among adolescents and young adults, music videos have become one of the most popular forms of television entertainment. Yet, context studies of these music videos indicate that women tend to be treated as “sex objects.” Madonna is one exception, depicting a powerful image of female sexuality.

The motto that “Sex Sells” has been generously applied to television advertising. Television uses sexual innuendos and images to sell almost every product from toothpaste to automobiles. The most sexually explicit commercials are generally those for jeans, beer, and perfumes. Paradoxically, commercials and public service announcements for birth control methods are banned from television. Those for “feminine hygiene” products and the prevention of sexually transmissible diseases, including AIDS, are quite restricted.

Subscriber cable television offers more sexually oriented programming, such as the Playboy Channel, than does network TV. However, the Exxxtacy Channel was forced out of business because of numerous government obscenity prosecutions. Virtual-reality technology is being developed to allow cable subscribers to use goggles, gloves, and body sensors to enjoy their own virtual sexual reality.

Filmmaking is a huge business and American films are marketed worldwide. Movies have been reported as one of the leading sources of sexual information for adolescent Anglo-American, Latino, and Native American males (Davis & Harris 1982). Films are given greater license to depict sexual behavior explicitly than on television; however, they are still censored. In fact, films, such as Basic Instinct, have more explicit sex in their uncut versions that are marketed abroad than the “cut” versions that are marketed domestically. Female nudity has become acceptable, whereas male frontal nudity is still censored. Sexual behaviors other than heterosexual intercourse tend to be missing from most films.

Videocassettes and videocassette recorders (VCRs) have revolutionized the viewing habits of Americans. Two hundred million X-rated videocassettes were rented in the U.S. in 1989. One study of college students determined that males viewed about six hours and females two hours of sexually explicit material on their VCRs a month (Strong & DeVault 1994).

Another very popular form of media, directed at females, is the romance novel, comprising 40% of all paperback book sales in the U.S. Romance novels are believed to both reflect and create the sexual fantasies and desires of their female American audience. The basic formula of this form of media is: “Female meets devastating man, sparks fly, lovers meld, lovers are torn apart, get back together, resolve their problems, and commit themselves, usually, to marriage” (Strong & DeVault 1994, 22).

Sexual language is disguised by euphemisms. For example, the male penis is referred to as a “love muscle” and the female vagina as a “temple of love.” Yet, romance novels are filled with sensuality, sexuality, and passion, with some people considering them softcore pornography.

Young males in the U.S. tend to learn about sexuality through more-explicit magazines, such as Playboy and Penthouse. Playboy is one of the most popular magazines worldwide, selling about 10 million issues monthly. Half of college men, but much fewer women, report that pornography has been a source of information for them regarding sexual behaviors (Duncan & Nicholson 1991).

Finally, with increased public access to computer technology, sexuality education is now being offered through the computer-based superhighway. This represents the “wave of the future” and is thoroughly discussed later in this chapter.

Parents as a Source of Sexual Information

It is widely believed that parents should be the primary sexuality educators of their children. They certainly provide a great deal of indirect sexuality education to their children through the ways that they display affection, react to nudity and bodies, and interact with people of different genders and orientations—as well as the attitudes they express (or the lack of expression) towards a myriad of sexual topics.

However, most parents in the United States provide little direct sexuality education to their children, even though the majority of children express the desire to be able to talk to their parents about sexuality. Studies of American adolescents consistently find that up to three quarters state that they have not discussed sexuality with their parents (Hass 1979; Sorenson 1973). Parents have expressed the following as barriers to discussing sexuality with their children: anxiety over giving misinformation or inappropriate information for the developmental level of their children; lack of skills in communicating about sexuality, since very few parents ever had role models on how to handle such discussions; and fear that discussing sexuality with their children will actually encourage them to become involved in sexual relationships.

When sexuality education occurs in the home, the mother is generally the parent who handles such discussions with both daughters and sons. Studies do indicate that, when parents talk to their children about sexuality, the children are more likely to wait to become involved in sexual behaviors until they are older, than those children who have not talked with their parents (Shah & Zelnick 1981). Further, when parent-educated teens do engage in sexual intercourse, they are more likely to use an effective means of birth control consistently and to have fewer sexual partners. In addition, high family sexual communication seems to be related to similarity in sexual attitudes between parents and their children.

Recognizing the importance of having parents involved in their children’s sexuality education, efforts are being made to prepare parents to become better sexuality educators. Sexuality-education programs for parents are offered separate from, and in conjunction with, children’s programs in some schools, and through some community and religious organizations. The goals of these programs include developing parents’ communication skills so that they can become more “askable,” increasing their knowledge about various aspects of sexuality, and exploring their attitudes and values surrounding these issues. For example, the National Congress of Parents and Teachers’ Associations (PTA) has created programs and publications on aspects of sexuality and HIV/AIDS prevention for use by local affiliates.

It is clear that we must continue to strive to reach all Americans with positive and comprehensive sexuality education through all of our available informal and formal channels. It is also imperative that sound qualitative and quantitative research methodologies be used to ascertain the impact of differing sexuality education strategies and sources on the diverse groups of people—e.g., gender, age, orientation, race, and ethnicity—in the United States.

[D. Sexuality Education 2003 Update

WILLIAM TAVERNER

[Update 2003: In 1996, the United States Congress authorized, and President Bill Clinton approved, approximately $100 million in annual spending for “abstinence-until-marriage” education programs. These programs attempt to establish “sexual abstinence” as the social standard for American teens and, in fact, for any unmarried American. Programs in states that accept these federal funds are prohibited from teaching the effectiveness of other methods of contraception and prevention from sexually transmitted infections. To the contrary, such programs often overstate the failure of these effective methods since the programs are not required to be based upon medically accurate research.

[There is currently no evidence that “abstinence-only” education programs are effective in reducing teen sexual activity, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, or in yielding any measurable outcome in the health of teens. There is, however, ample research that illustrates the characteristics of sexuality education programs that are effective. According to The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy Report (Kirby 2001), the most effective sex and HIV education programs share 10 common characteristics. These curricula and programs:

[Later in 2001, the U.S. Surgeon General released a report detailing the necessity for a comprehensive approach to sexuality education. Citing the alarmingly high rates of sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancies among Americans, Surgeon General David Satcher indicated that the United States needs to provide “evidence-based intervention models” for education, including accurate information about contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted infections (Satcher 2001).

[Americans overwhelmingly echoed their support for comprehensive sexuality education. Over 80% of Americans support education that teaches abstinence, pregnancy, and prevention from sexually transmitted infections (Dailard 2001). Polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation found even greater support among American parents. Ninety percent of parents want schools to teach their children about birth control (Kaiser 2000) and 85% want their children to learn about condoms (Kaiser 2000). Lost in the picture are teens who become sexually active, often without having the knowledge or skills to prevent pregnancy or infection. Sexual activity among young Americans often precedes sexuality education. Almost half of teen males, for example, report having had intercourse before learning how to say no to sex in schoo1 (Daillard 2001).

[Despite the lack of research for abstinence-only education, the calls for comprehensive sexuality education among parents and experts, and the reality of teen sexual activity, President George W. Bush’s 2003 budget actually increased funding for abstinence-only education by $85 million (White House, February 2002).

[Who Does the Real Sex Ed?

[Table 8 lists the key philosophical principles for sexuality education developed by the Center for Family Life Education (CFLE), part of Planned Parenthood of Greater Northern New Jersey. CFLE publishes many of the education manuals used by sexuality educators inside and outside of the organization, and in many other parts of the world. The organization is an affiliate of the national Planned Parenthood. With a current staff of 820 sexuality educators and 700 volunteers working in 127 affiliates nationwide, Planned Parenthood has provided over 1.5 million sexuality education programs, making it the largest network of sexuality educators in the country. Planned Parenthood educators have an impact on Americans of all ages, and on a substantial range of topics, including abstinence, contraception, safer sex, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, and more.

[Other major organizations that support and advocate for comprehensive sexuality education include Advocates for Youth, the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, the Network for Family Life Education, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). The SIECUS website, http://www.siecus.org, has a list of the nearly 150 national service and professional organizations that are a part of the National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education).

[Inside the classroom, many “sexuality educators” have a limited amount of time to actually teach about sexuality; 71% of sexuality educators acknowledged that they spend less than a quarter of their time teaching sexuality education, and the majority identify “health” as their main subject area (Kaiser 2000). The time classroom educators do spend on sexuality tends to focus on abstinence, much more so than they did 20 years ago (Darroch 2000). Today, 33% of U.S. school districts have no specific policy on sexuality education, 57% promote abstinence as either the only option, or as the preferred option, leaving only 10% of school districts that teach abstinence as one option in a broader education program (Landry 1999). Classroom teachers may be feeling the impact of political restrictions on what they can and cannot say. More than 9 in 10 teachers believe students should be taught about contraception, but many feel restricted from doing so Darroch 2000). In other subjects, teachers report a considerable gap between what they think young people need to learn and what they actually teach. Almost 80% of school educators think that students should learn about sexual orientation, but just over half spend any time teaching about it. And, almost 90% think students should learn facts about abortion, but 30% fewer actually spend time teaching about this controversial subject.

[The picture becomes even more interesting when one asks young people what they think is being taught in the classroom. When teachers and students are asked about what subjects were or were not covered in sexuality education, they report very differently. For example, 95% of teachers report having taught their students “how to deal with the pressure to have sex,” but only 79% percent of students report having learned this; 86% of teachers say they taught students how to get tested for HIV and other STDs, but only 69% of students say they were taught this. And, while 78% of teachers said they taught about what to do when “you or a friend has been sexually assaulted,” only 59% of students say this information was given to them (Kaiser 2000). Clearly, there is a disconnect between what teachers say they are teaching and what students say they are learning.

[The gap widens when one examines what American parents want their children to learn, versus what their children report having actually learned in the classroom. Strikingly, 97% of parents want their children to learn “how to talk with their parents,” but only 62% of students report having learned this; 76% of parents want their children to learn about sexual orientation, but only 41% of students say this is taught. (See Table 9 for an excerpted summary of the gap between parental expectations and the reality that their children report.)

[When students are asked what subjects they need more information about, over half say that they need to know what to do in the case of rape or sexual assault and more information about HIV and other STDs. Moreover, 40% say they need to learn skills for talking to a partner about birth control and STDs, and how to deal with the emotional consequences of being sexually active. Evidently, learning about abstinence is not enough. (End of update by W. Taverner)]

4. Autoerotic Behaviors and Patterns

ROBERT T. FRANCOEUR*

*With input from J. Kenneth Davidson, Sr.

A. Research Weaknesses and Challenges

Five weaknesses or shortcomings and three challenges can be identified in the current research on autoerotic attitudes and behavior patterns in the U.S.A. The weaknesses are:

The challenges include:

B. Children and Adolescents

In 1985, Mary Calderone, M.D., a pioneer of American sexology and cofounder of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, documented the presence of a functioning erectile reflex in a 17-week-old male fetus. Considering the homologies of the male and female genital systems, it is logical to assume that females also develop the capacity for cyclical vaginal lubrication while still in the womb. In a 1940 study of boys three to 20 weeks old, seven of nine infants had erections from five to 40 times a day. Seven-month-old girls have been observed experiencing what to all appearances can only be judged to be a reflexive orgasm induced by rubbing or putting pressure on their genitals.

The natural reflexes that result in fetal and infant erections and vaginal lubrication are very much like the knee jerk and other reflexes, except that they are accompanied by smiles and cooing that clearly suggest the infant is enjoying something quite pleasurable (Martinson 1990, 1995). Sooner or later, most children learn the pleasures of stimulating their genitals. Once that connection is made, the threat of punishment and sin may not be enough to keep a child from masturbating. Generally, American adults are very uncomfortable with masturbation by infants and children. There are exceptions, of course, as for instance, the practice of indigenous Hawaiian adult caregivers masturbating or fellating infants to calm them at night.

Most children seem to forget their early masturbation experiences. Two thirds of the males in Kinsey’s study reported hearing about masturbation from other boys in their prepubescent or early adolescent years before they tried it themselves. Fewer than one in three males reported they rediscovered masturbation entirely on their own. Two out of three females in Kinsey’s sample learned about masturbation by accident, sometimes not until after they were married. Some women reported they had masturbated for some time before they realized what they were doing.

In the 1940s, Kinsey and his associates reported that close to 90% of males and about 50% of females masturbated by the midteens. Studies in the 1980s show an increase in these numbers, with a fair estimate that today nearly three quarters of girls masturbate by adolescence and another 10% or so wait until their 20s. About 80% of adolescent girls and 90% of adolescent boys masturbate with frequencies ranging from once a week to about daily (Hass & Hass 1993, 151, 285).

C. Adults

Race and ethnicity, religion, educational level, and sexual education appear to be important variables that affect the incidence of masturbation. African-Americans engage in masturbation less often than whites and are more negative about it. Very little is known about Latino masturbation attitudes and practices. We are not aware of any studies on masturbation among other major groups, such as Asians and Native Americans. Religion is a key variable, especially given the continuing condemnation of masturbation by the Roman Catholic Church. Granted many Catholics engage in masturbation, but on a continuum, they are more likely to experience guilt feelings than Protestants or Jews. Likewise, persons from fundamentalist-Protestant backgrounds are more likely to have negative attitudes toward masturbation than liberal Protestants. Kinsey and many subsequent researchers have found that, as education level increases, especially among women, the acceptance and approval of masturbation as a sexual outlet increases. Finally, experience with sex education is an important variable (Heiby & Becker 1980). Persons who have had sex education appear to hold more-tolerant attitudes.

Data indicate that about 72% of young husbands masturbate an average of about twice a month. About 68% of young wives do so, with an average frequency of slightly less than once a month (Hunt 1974, 86). According to data reported by Edward Brecher in Love, Sex and Aging (1984), women in their 50s, 60s, and 70s reported a consistent masturbation frequency of 0.6 to 0.7 times a week. In their 50s, men reported masturbating 1.2 times a week, with a decline to 0.8 times a week in their 60s, and 0.7 times a week over age 70.

The incidence of masturbation has continued to increase in recent years among both college and postcollege women. During the 1980s, between 46% and 69% of college women in several surveys reported masturbating. In the 1990s, other surveys have found 45% to 78%. Postcollege women also became more accepting of masturbation as they received psychological permission, instruction, and support in learning about their own bodies. In fact, in self-reports of masturbation, a majority of postcollege-age, college-educated women indicated this was a sexual outlet. In a large-scale sample of college-educated women, without regard to marital status, frequency of masturbation was 7.1 times per month. By contrast, high-school-educated, married women engaged in masturbation only 3.7 times per month (Davidson & Darling 1993).

Not all women feel comfortable with masturbation. Among college women, 30% reported “shame” as a major reason for not engaging in this outlet. Other research indicates that only about half of college women believe that masturbation is a “healthy practice.” Even with the apparent increasing incidence of masturbation, considerable data exist that suggest negative feelings toward the practice still deter many college women from choosing this source of sexual fulfillment. And, of those who do engage in masturbation, they do so much less frequently than men, 3.3 times a month for college women compared with 4.8 times for college men (Davidson & Darling 1993).

In general, women are more likely than men to report guilt feelings about their masturbation. Further, substantial evidence suggests that such guilt feelings may interfere with the physiological and/or psychological sexual satisfaction derived from masturbation. In fact, the presence of masturbatory guilt has various implications for female sexuality. Such guilt feelings have been found to inhibit the use of the diaphragm, which necessitates touching the genitals for insertion (Byrne & Fisher 1983). Presumably, this would also affect use of other vaginally inserted contraceptives. Women with high levels of masturbatory guilt experience more emotional trauma after contracting an STD, and exhibit greater fear about telling their sex partner about being infected, than women with low masturbatory guilt. Masturbatory guilt may also inhibit women from experiencing high levels of arousal during foreplay as a prelude to having vaginal intercourse.

One indication of changing attitudes of women toward self-loving is the publication of Sex for One: The Joy of Selfloving, by Betty Dodson (1988), and her subsequent appearance on television talk shows. At the same time, the swift dismissal of the U.S. Surgeon General for daring to suggest that masturbation might be mentioned as part of safer-sex education for children indicates that a prevailing negative societal attitude toward masturbation continues.

[D. Research Update

WALTER BOCKTING

[Update 2003: New findings of studies on masturbation in the U.S. are consistent with recent European studies (Dekker & Schmidt 2002; Kontula & Haavio-Mannila 2002) in challenging the belief that masturbation is a substitute for sex with a partner. According to Kinsey’s “hydraulic” theory of sexuality (Laumann et al. 1994, 133), each individual has a given sex drive that can be measured by his or her total sexual outlet; when sex with a partner is less frequent, masturbation becomes the alternative sexual outlet to reach orgasm. However, results from the U.S. National Health and Social Life Survey (Laumann et al. 1994) and two recent studies among U.S. college students (Pinkerton, Bogart, Cecil, & Abramson 2002; Zamboni & Crawford 2002) found no such relationship between partner sex and masturbation. Rather, findings indicated that people who have regular sex partners, live with their sex partners, or are married, are more likely to masturbate than people without sexual partners or who live alone (Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, & Kolata 1994).

[A number of demographic factors have been shown to influence the prevalence and frequency of masturbation. Men are more likely to masturbate than women (63% versus 37% reported masturbating in the last year) and to masturbate more frequently (Laumann et al. 1994; Pinkerton et al. 2002). In terms of age, younger (18-24) and older (50-59) men and women are less likely to masturbate. Rather than being a function of biological age in and of itself, this may be because of the prevailing social attitudes and norms during adolescence when masturbation habits are formed (Kontula & Haavio-Mannila 2002; Pinkerton et al. 2002). The more-conservative attitudes toward masturbation and sexuality in the United States might also explain why the increase in young women’s masturbation found in Europe (Dekker & Schmidt 2002) has not yet been observed in America. In terms of education, the higher educated are more likely to masturbate and do so more frequently. Finally, black men and women are less likely to report masturbating than white men and women, however, those black women who did report masturbating were doing so more frequently than white women (Laumann et al. 1994).

[The most common reasons for masturbation reported by Americans are: 1. to relieve sexual tension (73% for men and 63% for women); 2. physical pleasure (40% for men and 42% for women); 3. partner unavailable (32% for both genders); 4. to relax (26% of men and 32% of women); 5. to go to sleep (16% for men and 12% for women); 6. partner doesn’t want sex (16% for men and 6% for women); 7. boredom (11% of men and 5% of women); and 8. fear of AIDS/STD (7% for men and 5% for women). Fifty-four percent of men and 47% of women felt guilty after masturbation (Laumann et al. 1994).

[The taboo associated with masturbation (Bullough 2002) and the stigma associated with the study of masturbation (Coleman 2002) has left this safer-sex practice virtually unexplored in HIV-prevention research. To fill this gap, Robinson and colleagues (2002) examined the relationship between masturbation and HIV risk among low-income African-American women. The majority (62%) had experience with masturbation, over a third (36%) reported recent masturbation, and a few (13%) reported more than occasional feelings of guilt. Women who masturbated were more likely to report having multiple sexual partners, being in a nonmonogamous relationship, and engaging in high-risk sexual behavior. Thus, while masturbation is very safe sex, the women who reported masturbating were more (not less) likely to be at risk for HIV infection or transmission. Consistent with these findings, a study among U.S. college students found that women who masturbate more often had a greater number of lifetime sexual partners, and women who started masturbating at an earlier age were at higher risk for HIV (Pinkerton et al. 2002).

[Together, these findings indicate that masturbation is indeed not a substitute for those who are sexually deprived, but an activity that stimulates and is stimulated by other sexual behavior (Michael et al. 2002, 165). Sexual attitudes and social norms seem to influence the practice and experience of masturbation. Although many of the misconceptions about masturbation have faded because of an increased understanding of human sexuality (Bullough 2002), much about the role of masturbation in sexual development and sexual health remains to be discovered. (End of update by W. Bockting)]

[Current Cultural Observations

MARTHA CORNOG

[Comment 2003: Cultural involvement with masturbation has expanded considerably in the United States over the last few decades. Use of sex toys and sex aids has become more common and a subject for research (Blank & Whidden 2000; Davis, Blank, Lin, & Bonillas 1996; Elliott & Brantley 1997, 28-29; Maines 1998). While public discourse has evoked many of the old taboos—we recall the chastisement of Paul “Pee-Wee Herman” Reubens, charged with masturbating in a dark theater, and Dr. Joycelyn Elders, dismissed as Surgeon General for suggesting schools mention masturbation as part of sex education—the topic has become a reliable vehicle for humor in film, television, and stand-up comedy (Cornog 2003, 285-291).

[Certainly, the market for sexually arousing materials (“pornography”) has expanded in print, video, and now on the Net (Lane 2000). Since many people use these materials during masturbation, we know one thing, at least: There’s a whole lot of masturbating going on. Elliott and Brantley (1997, 28) reported that 67% of the male college students in their sample used a “pornographic magazine” to masturbate, and 13% of female students did so.

[Group masturbation, which has probably flourished underground for centuries and is mentioned in connection with boys’ “circle jerks” as early as the 1700s, has become somewhat accepted as an adult activity with the growth of semipublic “jacks” clubs in the U.S. and also internationally (Cornog 2002). On a lesser scale, far more people probably share masturbation with each other than ever before, especially through telephone sex and cybersex.

[A long-neglected area has been publishing. Only a dozen books about masturbation appeared in the U.S. from 1960 to 1990. But 18 have come out since 1990, five in the last three years. American culture seems to be evolving towards seeing masturbation as a fascinating subject, as real sex with its own unique pleasures, and as an activity to share with someone you love as well as enjoy alone. (End of comment by M. Cornog)]

5. Interpersonal Heterosexual Behaviors

A. Childhood Sexuality

DAVID L. WEIS*

*With input from Paul Okami.

Within American culture, childhood sexuality remains an area that has been largely unexplored by researchers. Childhood is widely seen as a period of asexual innocence. Strong taboos continue concerning childhood eroticism, and childhood sexual expression and learning are still divisive social issues. This general ambience of anxiety associated with the sexuality of children is probably understandable, given the general history of sexuality in the U.S.A., with its focus on adult dyadic sex within committed intimate relationships and its opposition to other sexual expressions. This ambience remains, despite the fact that nearly a century has passed since Freud introduced his theory of psychosexual stages with an emphasis placed on the sexual character of childhood development. This reluctance to accept childhood sexuality is somewhat ironic, because Freudian theory, with its concepts of psychosexual stages (oral, anal, phallic, and latency), penis envy, the Oedipus/Electra complexes, repression, and the unconscious, has been immensely popular in the United States throughout much of the 20th century. Yet, the general American public has been able to ignore the prominence given to childhood sexual development by Freudian theorists and to maintain its central belief that childhood is and ought to be devoid of sexuality.

Perhaps no area reviewed in this section has been the subject of less scientific research than this topic of childhood sexuality. To some extent, the paucity of research has been because of general social concerns about the ethical implications of studying children or assumptions about the possible harm to children that would result if they were to be included in sexuality research. Researchers have frequently had difficulty gaining the permission of legal guardians to ask children questions about their knowledge of sexuality. In this atmosphere, it would be exceedingly difficult to get permission to ask children about their sexual behavior. One consequence of this general social concern has been that most of the relevant research has been confined to asking adults or college students to report retrospectively about events that occurred in their childhood. There are rather clear and obvious limitations to this approach.

On the other hand, we should recognize that many American scientists themselves have been unwilling to study the sexuality of children. A recent review, Sexuality Research in the United States: An Assessment of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (di Mauro 1995), is notable for the fact that it never mentions childhood sexuality. It might be interesting to determine the extent to which American researchers accept the premise that scientific explorations of sexuality might be harmful to children. For example, the field of child development, a sizable branch of American psychology, has largely ignored the issue of sexuality in their work (Maccoby & Martin 1983; Mussen 1983). An examination of standard developmental texts or reviews of the child-development research literature is striking for its omission of sexuality. Significant bodies of child-development research in such important areas as language acquisition, cognition, communication, social behavior, parent-child interaction, attachment (Allgeier & Allgeier 1988), parenting styles, and child compliance have emerged with scant attention to the possible sexual elements of these areas, or to the ways in which these areas might be related to sexual development (Mussen 1983). As just one example, Piaget never investigated the issue of children’s sexual cognition, and there has been little subsequent research exploring the application of his theoretical model to sexual development. Similarly, the emergence of family systems theory has also largely ignored the sexuality of children—except to explain the occurrence of incest.

At the same time, it is just as true that sexuality researchers have largely ignored the work of child developmentalists and other scientific disciplines in their own work. They have speculated about how theories of psychoanalysis, social learning, cognition, attribution, social exchange, and symbolic interactionism might be applied to the sexuality of children or to the process of sexual development, but they have rarely tested such assertions empirically (see Allgeier & Allgeier 1988 and Martinson 1976 for examples). Moreover, sex researchers have largely failed to examine how the various processes studied by developmentalists relate to sexuality.

A third domain of this fractured American approach to child development is the fairly recent emergence of professional fields devoted solely to the issue of child sexual abuse. We present a review of child sexual abuse itself later in this chapter (see second subsection in Section 8A, Significant Unconventional Sexual Behaviors, Coercive Sex). Here, we wish to make the point that professional groups—e.g., social workers and family therapists devoted to the treatment of victims of child sexual abuse—have emerged, largely since the 1970s, with a corresponding body of work devoted to that concern. After having been largely neglected for much of the 20th century, the treatment of child sexual abuse has become a sizable “industry” in recent years. Unfortunately, much of the work that has been done within this perspective has failed to consider existing data on normative childhood sexuality (Okami 1992, 1995). For example, it is frequently asserted that child sexual abuse has the negative consequence of “sexualizing” the child’s world. We do not mean to claim that child sexual abuse is either harmless or nonexistent. However, the notion that a “sexualized” childhood is a tragic outcome of sexual abuse rests on the American premise that childhood should be devoid of sexuality. It assumes that childhood should not be sexual. From this perspective, the concept of child sexual abuse has been extended to include family nudity—a point certain to shock naturists in many countries around the world—parents bathing with their children, “excessive” displays of physical affection (such as kissing and hugging), and even children of the same age engaging in sex play (Okami 1992, 1995). Thus, we seem to have come full circle. Many professionals have come to accept the premise that childhood ought to be an innocent period, free of sexuality. The fact that this view ignores much of the existing data seems to have had little impact on either the American public or many professionals working with children .

Childhood Sexual Development and Expression

In reviewing the process of child sexual development and the phenomenon of child eroticism, it is crucial to consider the meanings that children attach to their experience. There is a tendency to interpret childhood experiences in terms of the meanings that adults have learned to attach to similar events. This ignores the reality that young children almost certainly do not assign the same meanings to “sexual” events as adults. They have yet to conceptualize a system of experiences, attitudes, and motives that adults label as “sexual” (Allgeier & Allgeier 1988; Gagnon & Simon 1973; Martinson 1976). A good example is provided by the case of childhood “masturbation.” Young children often discover that “playing” with their genitals is a pleasurable experience. However, this may well not be the same as “masturbating.” Masturbation, as adults understand that term, is a set of behaviors defined as “sexual” because they are recognized as producing “sexual arousal” and typically having orgasm or “sexual climax” as a goal. Young children have yet to construct this complex set of meanings. They know little more than that the experience is pleasurable; it feels good. In fact, it would be useful to see research that examines the process by which children eventually learn to label such self-pleasuring as a specifically sexual behavior called masturbation.

From this perspective, sexual development is, to a considerable extent, a process characterized by the gradual construction of a system of sexual meanings. Gagnon and Simon (1973) have provided a theoretical model of sexual scripting that examines how these meanings are assembled in a series of stages through social interaction with various socialization agents. In their discussion of the model, Gagnon and Simon stressed their intention that it would serve as an organizing framework for future research on the process of sexual development. Although we believe that the model does provide a potentially fruitful framework for thinking about the process of sexual development, and despite the fact that more than 20 years have passed since its original presentation, there is nearly as great a need for research of this type today as when they formulated the model.

One component of the model proposed by Gagnon and Simon (1973) was the concept of assemblies, by which they meant to convey their view that sexual development is actively constructed by humans rather than merely being an organic process. Among the major assemblies they identified were:

Gagnon and Simon maintained that these assemblies were constructed through interactions with a variety of socialization agents, such as parents and family members, same-sex peers, cross-sex peers, and the mass media. To this list, we would suggest adding the church, the school, the neighborhood/community, and boyfriends/girlfriends as potentially important socialization agents. For Gagnon and Simon, the task for researchers was to examine and identify the associations between the activities of various socialization agents and the corresponding construction of specific sexual assemblies. Although a fair amount of research has been conducted on such associations among adolescents (see the following section), sadly there remains relatively little research along these lines for younger children. As such, we will not present a detailed discussion of the activities of each socialization agent here.

Lacking space to review each of the assemblies, we have had to be selective and have chosen to focus on the more explicitly erotic dimensions. However, we do wish to note that each is ultimately important to a full understanding of sexual development, and it is likely that each of these assemblies is related to the others. Although we do not have space to review the research on the development of gender roles and gender identity, it appears that most American children have formed a stable gender identity by the age of 2 or 3 (Maccoby & Martin 1983; Money & Ehrhardt 1972). It also seems likely that, as children acquire sexual information and experience, they filter what they learn in terms of what is appropriate for males and females. Since norms for male and female behavior, both sexual and nonsexual, tend to differ, this filtering process seems likely to lead to differences in the content of and processes of male and female sexual development.

On the other hand, we would caution the reader to resist the temptation to conclude that gender differences in sexuality are invariably large, or that they apply to all dimensions of sexuality. Recent reviews of existing research indicate that many aspects of sexuality are not characterized by male-female differences and that many differences are small in magnitude (Oliver & Hyde 1993). Ultimately, the issue is a matter for empirical investigation. Unfortunately, there has been relatively little empirical research attempting to link gender-role development (of which there has been a great deal of research in the last 30 years) with the processes of more overtly sexual development.

Childhood Sexual Eroticism and Expression. Martinson (1976) has drawn a distinction between what he calls reflexive and eroticized sexual experiences. Reflexive experience is pleasurable and may be a result of learning contingencies, but eroticized experience is characterized by self-conscious awareness and labeling of behavior as sexual. As a general guideline, younger and less-experienced children would seem more likely to react to sexual stimuli in a reflexive manner; older and more-experienced children are more likely to have learned erotic meanings and to define similar behaviors as “sexual.” However, there has been virtually no research detailing the process in which this transition occurs or identifying the factors associated with it.

Sexual Capacity and Autoerotic Play. It has been clear for several decades that infants are capable of reflexive sexual responses from birth. Male infants are capable of erections, and female infants are capable of vaginal lubrication (Allgeier & Allgeier 1988; Halverson 1940). Lewis (1965) observed pelvic thrusting movements in infants as early as 8 months of age. Generally, these events appear to be reactions to spontaneous stimuli, such as touching or brushing of the genitals. However, the Kinsey research group (1953) did report several cases of infants less than 1 year of age who had been observed purposely stimulating their own genitals. In their cross-cultural survey, Ford and Beach (1951) reported that, in cultures with a permissive norm, both boys and girls progress from absent-minded fingering of their genitals in the first year of life to systematic masturbation by the age of 6 to 8.

With few exceptions, most research on childhood sexual experiences has asked adolescents or adults to describe events in their past. Males participating in such studies commonly report memories of what they call “their first pleasurable erection” at such ages as 6 and 9 (Martinson 1976), although, as we have just seen, studies of infants themselves document the occurrence of erections from birth. Kinsey and his associates (1953) did report that almost all boys could have orgasms without ejaculation three to five years before puberty, and more than one half could reach orgasm by age 3 or 4. Comparable data for females have not been presented. In addition, both boys and girls between the ages of 6 and 10 have reported becoming sexually aroused by thinking about sexual events (Langfeldt 1979).

Much has been made in the U.S.A. of the fact that sexual arousal in boys is readily visible (erections). A number of authors have argued that this increases the probability that young boys will “discover” their penis and are, thus, more likely to stimulate their own genitals than are girls. This idea has become part of the folklore of American culture. We know of no evidence that substantiates this idea. In fact, Galenson and Roiphe (1980) report that there are no gender differences in autoerotic play during the first year of life.

American culture does not encourage such childhood sex play and actively seeks to restrict it. In a study in the 1950s, only 2% of mothers reported that they were “permissive” about their own children’s sex play (Sears, Maccoby, & Levin 1957). It is also interesting to note that the researchers in this study did not provide a response category that allowed mothers to indicate they “supported” or “encouraged” sex play. Martinson (1973) found this pattern extended well into the 1970s. In a later investigation of parental views toward masturbation, Gagnon (1985) found that the majority (86%) of this sample believed that their preadolescent children had masturbated. However, only 60% of the parents thought that this was acceptable, and only one third wanted their children to have a positive attitude about masturbation.

Sex Play with Other Children. The capacity to interact with another person in an eroticized manner and to experience sexual feelings, either homosexual or heterosexual, is clearly present by the age of 5 to 6. Langfeldt (1979) did observe both mounting and presenting behaviors in boys and girls at 2 years of age. He also observed that prepubertal boys who engaged in sex play with other children typically displayed penile erections during sex play. Ford and Beach (1951) found that children in cultures, unlike the U.S.A., who are able to observe adult sexual relations will engage in copulatory behaviors as early as 6 or 7 years of age. Moreover, in some cultures, adults actively instruct children in the techniques or practice of sexual relations (Ford & Beach 1951; Reiss 1986). This cross-cultural evidence appears to have had little impact on the way in which most Americans, including many sexuality professionals, think about childhood sociosexual interactions.

Again, most of the research in the U.S.A. has been based on recall data from adolescents or adults. Our impressions of childhood sexual interactions are biased toward periods that such older respondents can remember. A number of studies have examined the frequency of childhood sexual behaviors (Broderick 1965, 1966; Broderick & Fowler 1961; Goldman & Goldman 1982; Kinsey et al. 1948, 1953; Martinson 1973, 1976; Ramsey 1943). Taken together, these studies demonstrate that many American children develop and maintain an erotic interest in the other or same sex, and begin experiencing a wide range of sexual behaviors as early as age 5 to 6. It is not uncommon for Americans to report that they remember “playing doctor” or similar games that provide opportunities for observing and touching the genitals of other children, undressing other children, or displaying their own genitals to others. Many American children also acquire experience with kissing and deep kissing (what Americans call French kissing). In fact, generations of American children have played institutionalized kissing games, such as “spin the bottle” and “post office.” These studies also provide evidence that at least some American children experience sexual fondling, oral sex, anal sex, and intercourse prior to puberty. Many of these behaviors are experienced in either heterosexual or homosexual combinations or both.

We have purposely avoided reporting the specific frequencies of the childhood sociosexual experiences in these studies because each possesses severe limitations with respect to generalizability. Most have had small samples drawn from a narrow segment of the total population in a specific geographic region. As early as the 1960s, researchers found evidence of racial and community differences in the rate of such behaviors (Broderick 1965, 1966; Broderick & Fowler 1961). In addition, most have used volunteer samples with respondents who were trying to recall events that had occurred ten or more years earlier. Moreover, these studies were conducted over a period of five decades, during which there would seem to be great potential for changes. Comparisons among these studies are virtually impossible. As a result, we would have little confidence in the specific accuracy of frequency estimates.

A review of a few of these studies illustrates this point. Interviewing a group of boys in a midwestern city in the early 1940s, Ramsey (1943) found that 85% had masturbated prior to age 13, one third had engaged in homosexual play, two thirds had engaged in heterosexual play, and one third had attempted or completed intercourse. The Kinsey group (1948), using a broader sample of adults, reported that 45% had masturbated by age 13, 30% had engaged in homosexual play, 40% had engaged in heterosexual play, and 20% had attempted intercourse. For girls, the Kinsey group (1953) reported that roughly 20% had masturbated prior to age 13, roughly one third had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual play, and 17% had attempted intercourse. They also reported an actual decline in sexual behaviors after age 10 (Kinsey et al. 1948). The large differences between the Ramsey and Kinsey findings could be because of sample size, differences in geographic region or size of the city, differences in the time period of data collection, or differences in the age range of the samples. Here, it is interesting to note that the Kinsey group (1948) also interviewed a small sample of boys. Roughly 70% reported some form of child sex play, a figure that is much closer to Ramsey’s findings. In the larger Kinsey sample, only 57% of adult males and 48% of adult females reported memories of childhood sex play, usually between the ages of 8 to 13 (Kinsey et al. 1948, 1953). It would seem possible, then, that studies with adult samples recalling their childhood experiences might well yield lower estimates than studies of children themselves.

John Money (1976) and Money and Ehrhardt (1972) argue that childhood sex play with other children is a necessary and valuable form of rehearsal and preparation for later adult sexual behavior. He has also suggested that such sex play may occur as part of a developmental stage in childhood. Certainly, this phenomenon has been observed in other primate species, such as the chimpanzee (DeWaal 1982). However, Kilpatrick (1986, 1987) found no differences in various ages of adult sexual functioning between persons who had childhood sexual experiences with other children and those who did not. Given the complexity of the model of sexual assemblies we have presented here, it is not surprising that the effects are not that simple.

Sibling Incest. We discuss incest and child sexual abuse more fully in Section 8A, Significant Unconventional Sexual Behaviors, on coercive sex. Here, we merely wish to note that, in one of the few studies of sibling incest with a nonclinical sample, Finkelhor (1980) found that 15% of female and 10% of male college students reported having a sexual experience with a brother or sister. Approximately 40% of these students had been under the age of 8 at the time of the sexual activity, and roughly 50% had been between the ages of 8 and 12. Three quarters of the experiences had been heterosexual. Some type of force had been used in one quarter of the experiences. The most common sexual activities were touching and fondling of the genitals. Only 12% of the students had ever told anyone about these sexual activities with a brother or a sister. Interestingly, most of the students reported that they did not have either strong positive or negative feelings about these experiences. Positive reactions were reported by 30%, and another 30% reported negative reactions. Positive reactions were associated with consensual activities (no force had been used) and an age difference of four or fewer years. For males, there were no correlations between prior sibling experiences and current sexual activity. Among females, those who had had sibling sexual experiences were more likely to be currently sexually active. Those women who had positive sibling experiences after age 9 had significantly higher sexual self-esteem, whereas those who had sexual experiences before age 9 with a sibling more than four years older had lower self-esteem.

Sexual Contacts with Adults. A recent national survey (Laumann et al. 1994) found that 12% of men and 17% of women reported they had been sexually touched by an older person while they were children. The offender was typically not a stranger, but a family friend or a relative, a finding that is comparable to more-limited samples. We present a more complete review of sexual contacts with adults later in Section 8A, Significant Unconventional Sexual Behaviors, Coercive Sex, on child sexual abuse and incest. Relatively few studies of adult-child sexual contacts have been conducted with nonclinical samples. In general, they indicate that children experience a wide range of reactions, from highly negative or traumatic to highly positive, to such contacts in both the short term and long term (Kilpatrick 1986, 1987; Nelson 1986; Farrell 1990). Moreover, there do not appear to be any simple or direct correlations between such childhood experiences and later measures of adult sexual functioning. In her study of incest, Nelson (1986) found no correlation between affective outcomes and type of erotic activity, sexual orientation, or consanguinity. Kilpatrick (1986) did find that the use of force or abuse was significantly related to impaired adult sexual functioning in several areas.

Same-Sex Childhood Experiences. Our discussion to this point has not focused exclusively on heterosexual experience, but it is certainly fair to say that investigations of heterosexual child sex play have dominated existing research. One study of 4- to 14-year-old children found that more than one half of boys and one third of girls reported at least one homosexual experience (Elias & Gebhard 1969). Masturbation, touching of the genitals, and exhibition were the most common activities, although there were also some reports of oral and anal contacts. The fact that children have had such a homosexual experience does not appear to be related to adult sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith 1981; Van Wyk & Geist 1984).

Storms (1981) has hypothesized that such experiences may be related to adult sexual orientation as a function of sexual maturation. He suggests that persons who become sexually mature during the period of homosocial networks (discussed below) may be more likely to romanticize and eroticize these childhood homosexual experiences and, thus, develop a later preference for sexual partners of the same gender. In effect, when sexual maturation, goal-directed masturbation, homosexual explorations, and eroticized fantasies are paired before heterosexual socialization occurs (typically at about age 13), they are more likely to lead to a homosexual orientation later. As far as we know, Storms’s ideas have never been directly tested through research.

Childhood Social Networks. During middle childhood (roughly ages 6 to 12), both boys and girls in the U.S.A. tend to form networks of same-sex friends. A pattern of gender segregation, where boys and girls have separate friends and play groups, is central to the daily life of middle childhood. This pattern of homosocial networks is readily observable at elementary schools across the U.S.A. Girls and boys tend to cluster at school into separated, same-sex groups. At lunchtime, they frequently sit at separate “girls’ tables” and “boys’ tables.” On the playground, space and activities tend to be gendered. After school, children tend to associate and play in gender-segregated groupings. In fact, this pattern of gender separation may be more pronounced in middle childhood in the U.S.A. than the more-publicized racial segregation.

It should be acknowledged that these homosocial networks are not characterized by a total separation of the genders. There are some opportunities for heterosocial interactions and play, and children do vary with respect to the extent in which they associate with the other sex. As just one obvious example, some girls, who are known as “tomboys,” spend considerable time associating with boys. Still, to a large extent, the worlds of boys and girls in middle childhood in the U.S.A. are separated.

Maltz and Borker (1983) have suggested that these homosocial networks can be viewed as distinct male and female cultures. As cultures, each has its own set of patterns, norms, and rules of discourse. Boys tend to play in groups that are arranged in a hierarchy. They stress a norm of achievement (“doing”) and emphasize competitive, physical activities. Conflict is overt and is often resolved directly through physical fighting. Differentiation between boys is made directly in terms of power and status within the group. Since boys belong to more than one such group, and because group memberships do change over time, each boy has an opportunity to occupy a range of positions within these hierarchies. Boys’ groups also tend to be inclusive. New members are easily accommodated, even if they must begin their membership in a lower-status position. Courage and testing limits are prime values of boys’ groups, and breaking rules is a valued form of bonding. In examining how these patterns influence male communication, Maltz and Borker (1983) report that males are more likely to interrupt others, they are more likely to ignore the previous statement made by another speaker, they are more likely to resist an interruption, and they are more likely to directly challenge statements by others.

Girls tend to associate in smaller groups or friendship pairs. Girls, for example, tend to be highly invested in establishing and maintaining a “best friend” relationship. They stress a norm of cooperation (“sharing”) and pursue activities that emphasize “working together” and “being nice.” They frequently play games that involve “taking turns.” Friendship is seen as requiring intimacy, equality, mutual commitment, and cooperation. However, girls’ groups also tend to be exclusive. Membership is carefully reserved for those who have demonstrated they are good friends. Conflict tends to be covert, and it is highly disruptive, leading to a pattern of shifting alliances among associates. Differentiation between girls is not made in terms of power, but rather in relative closeness. Girls are more likely to affirm the value of rules, especially if they are seen as serving group cohesion or making things fair. Girls may break rules, but their gender group does not provide the intense encouragement and support for this behavior seen among boys. Maltz and Borker (1983) note that girls are more likely to ask questions to facilitate conversation, they are more likely to take turns talking, they are more likely to encourage others to speak, and they are more likely to feel quietly victimized when they have been interrupted.

These largely segregated gender networks in middle childhood serve as the contexts for learning about adolescent and adult sexual patterns, as well as for other areas of social life. There is, of course, a certain irony to the fact that homosocial networks serve as a principal learning context for heterosexuality in a culture with such strong taboos against homosexuality as the U.S.A. In fact, Martinson (1973) has argued that these gender networks and this period serve as the settings for a fair amount of homosexual exploration and activity. In one sense, it is almost certainly true that some homosexual activity results from these patterns of social organization. However, this assertion is largely undocumented, and we are not aware of any studies that compare the level of homosexual activity in cultures with homosocial networks with cultures having some other form of childhood networks.

Thorne and Luria (1986) have used this concept of gendered cultures to examine the process of sexual learning in middle childhood. They found that “talking dirty” is a common format for the rule-breaking that characterizes boys’ groups. They noted that talking dirty serves to define boys as apart from adults, and that boys get visibly excited while engaging in such talk. Boys also often share pornography with each other and take great care to avoid detection and confiscation by adults. These processes provide knowledge about what is sexually arousing, and they also create a hidden, forbidden, and arousing world shared with other boys, apart from adults and girls. Miller and Simon (1981) have argued that the importance attached to rule violations creates a sense of excitement and fervor about sexual activity and accomplishment.

One other feature of boys’ groups is that they serve as a setting for learning both homoeroticism and homophobia. Boys learn to engage in what Thorne and Luria call “fag talk.” That is, they learn to insult other boys by calling them names, like “faggot” and “queer.” Eventually, they learn that homosexuality is disapproved by the male peer group. Boys at age 5 to 6 can be observed touching each other frequently. By age 11 to 12, touching is less frequent and reduced to ritual gestures like poking each other. On the other hand, much of the time spent with other boys is spent talking about sex. This serves to maintain a high level of arousal within the group. Moreover, the sanctioning of rule-breaking leads to some homosexual experimentation that is kept hidden from the group. Homosexual experiences may become one more form of breaking the rules and one more feature of the secret, forbidden world of sexuality.

In contrast, girls are more likely to focus on their own and their friends’ physical appearance. They monitor one another’s emotions. They share secrets and become mutually vulnerable through self-disclosure. They have giggling sessions with their friends, with sex often being the source of amusement. Their talks with other girls tend to focus less on physical activities and more on relationships and romance. They also plot together how to get particular boys and girls together in a relationship.

These sexual patterns are largely consistent with the norms of the respective gender cultures. Males tend to focus on physical activities; females on cooperation and sharing. They are also quite consistent with patterns that will become firmly established in adolescent sociosexual patterns. Thus, male and female peer groups become the launching pads for heterosexual coupling as boys and girls begin to “go together.” Finally, they serve to heighten the romantic/erotic component of interactions with the other gender.

[Puberty and Menarche

ROBERT T. FRANCOEUR

[Update 1998: A puzzling phenomenon has been noted in new data regarding the onset of female puberty in the United States (see Table 10). According to a 1997 study of 17,000 girls ages 3 through 12 seen in 65 pediatric practices around the country, American girls are reaching puberty earlier than previously believed. Nearly half of African-American and 15% of white girls are beginning to develop sexually by age 8 (Herman-Giddens 1997). The average age of menstruation for white girls has been unchanged for 45 years. For black girls—about 9.6% of the 17,000 girls in the study—the average age of menarche is about four months younger than it was 30 years ago, when poor nutrition and poverty, which can delay puberty, afflicted more blacks.

[Preliminary comparisons of these data with puberty onset and menarche data from a variety of other countries indicate that the age of menarche is roughly similar around the world, while the onset of puberty is about two years earlier in the United States than it is in other countries.

[The study raises questions about whether environmental estrogens, chemicals that mimic the female hormone estrogen, are inducing earlier puberty among some girls. Environmental estrogens occur from the breakdown of chemicals in products ranging from pesticides to plastic wrap. Natural estrogen is used in some hair products, including pomades marketed to blacks. Research is needed to ascertain whether and to what extent natural and environmental estrogen may be affecting sexual development.

[As the study’s lead author, Marcia Herman-Giddens of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted, the new data also suggest that sex education should begin sooner than is current practice. “I don’t think parents, teachers, or society in general have been really thinking of children that young having to deal with puberty.” (End of update by R. T. Francoeur)]

Professional and Social Issues of Childhood Sexuality

As we stated at the beginning of this section and as should be apparent from the review of sex education in the U.S.A., there are a number of issues concerning childhood sexuality that have been controversial for decades. Moreover, several new issues have become points of social conflict in recent years. We can only briefly mention four here.

The Oedipus and Electra Complexes. The Goldmans’ (1982) multinational study of children and sexual learning, including a sizable American sample, raises questions about these complexes. Freud’s thesis about castration anxiety and its resolution (typically by the age of 5) would presumably require some awareness of genital differences between males and females, unless one wishes to interpret Freud’s terminology strictly as metaphorical. In the Goldman study, the majority of English-speaking children did not understand these differences until they were 7 to 9 years old. Interestingly, a majority of the Swedish children could accurately describe these differences by the age of 5.

Is There a Latency Period? The notion of a latency period, roughly from ages 6 to 11, has had great appeal in American culture. This may be because of the impression that the homosocial networks of middle childhood reflect a lack of sexual interest, and to the fact that many Americans prefer to believe that childhood is a period of sexual innocence. Freud (1938) originally proposed in 1905 that middle childhood is characterized by relative sexual disinterest and inactivity, something like a dormant period. Freud also maintained that latency was more pronounced among boys than girls. The review above should certainly dispel the notion that childhood, at any point, is essentially characterized by sexual disinterest.

In addition, Broderick (1965, 1966) not only provided evidence of active sex play during middle childhood, but also demonstrated that most children indicate they wish to marry as an adult, and that most of these children are actively involved in a process of increasing heterosocial interaction and love involvements during childhood. A majority said they had had a boyfriend or girlfriend and had been in love, and 32% had dated by age 13. If anything, we would expect that the age norms for many of these behaviors have actually decreased since that time. Interestingly, those children who indicated that they did not wish to marry eventually were substantially less likely to report any of these activities.

Parental Nudity. Experts have disagreed over the years as to the impact of parental nudity on children (Okami 1995). Some have argued that childhood exposure to parental/adult nudity is potentially traumatic—largely because of the large size of adult organs. Others have insisted that strong taboos on family nudity may lead to a view that the body is unacceptable or shameful. This group has argued that a relaxed attitude toward nudity can help children develop positive feelings about sexuality. Similar concerns have been expressed about the primal scene and sleeping in the parental bed. In a survey of 500 psychiatrists, 48% indicated that they believe that children who witness their parents engaging in intercourse do suffer psychological effects (Pankhurst 1979). American experts appear to overlook the fact that most families throughout the world sleep in one-room dwellings. In one study of these issues, Lewis and Janda (1988) asked 200 college students to report their childhood experiences. Exposure to parental nudity for ages zero to 5 and 6 to 11 was generally unrelated to a series of measures of adult sexual adjustment. Sleeping in the parental bed yielded several small, but significant correlations. Persons who had slept in their parents’ bed as children had higher self-esteem, greater comfort about sexuality, reduced sexual guilt and anxiety, greater frequency of sex, greater comfort with affection, and a higher acceptance of casual sex as college students.

Okami (1995) reviewed the literature in these same three areas. His review provides a thorough summary of clinical opinions in each area, as well as an assessment of the empirical evidence. Despite the growing number of clinical professionals who label such acts as sexual abuse, there is virtually no empirical evidence of harm. In fact, the only variable found to be associated with harm is cosleeping, which has been found to be associated with sleep disturbances. However, Okami notes that these sleep disturbances may well have preceded and precipitated the cosleeping, rather than vice versa.

Female Genital Cutting. In December 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that more than 150,000 women and girls of African origin or ancestry in the United States were at risk in 1995 of being subjected to genital cutting or had already been cut. This estimate was based on 1990 Census Bureau data gathered before the recent increase in refugees and immigrants from the 28 countries that span Africa’s midsection where female genital cutting varies widely in prevalence and severity (Dugger 1996ab). A second source cites a different estimate from the CDC using data on how much circumcision is practiced in immigrants’ homelands and, making assumptions about sex and age, that about 270,00 African females in the United States were circumcised in their home country or are at risk here (Hamm 1996).

In 1996, Congress adopted a dual strategy to combat the practice here. In April 1996, Congress passed a bill requiring the Immigration and Naturalization Service to inform new arrivals of U.S. laws against genital cutting. It also mandated the Department of Health and Human Services to educate immigrants about the harm of genital cutting and to educate medical professionals about treating circumcised women. A law, which went into effect March 29, 1997, also criminalizes the practice, making it punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations such as hospitals. Enforcement of the law, however, is problematic for several reasons. First, no one is sure how the law will apply to those immigrants who take their daughters out of the country for the rite. Second, doctors who spot cases of genital mutilation are reluctant to report it for fear of breaking up tight-knit families. Also, when the wounds are healed, it is impossible to ascertain whether the rite was performed here or before arrival in the United States. Finally, there is the secretiveness surrounding this rite of passage, which many African cultures consider essential, and also the hidden nature of the wounds and scars. Sierra Leoneans, for instance, who consider genital cutting part of an elaborate, highly secret initiation rite, view questions about it as a profound invasion of their privacy (Dugger 1996ab).

A government prevention program focuses on educating both old and recent immigrants in how to survive and assimilate in American society while maintaining their own culture and religion. To this purpose, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has organized meetings with advocates for refugees and nonprofit groups that work closely with Africans to develop strategies for combating this practice. Muslim religious leaders, for instance, are invited to explain that the Koran does not require this practice. However, lack of a specific budget hampers this effort.

In one attempt to ameliorate this clash of cultural values, doctors at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, persuaded Somali mothers to be satisfied with nicking the clitoral hood without removing any tissue. The ritual usually involves removing the clitoris and sewing the labia closed. The compromise was abandoned in December of 1996 when the hospital was inundated with hundreds of complaints, led by a group of feminists, protesting even this compromise, even though the nicking of the clitoral hood has no short- or long-term negative consequences. The massive objection to this compromise raises serious questions of ethnocentrism on the part of the Americans who protested it. It seems somewhat ironic that such complaints would be made in a culture where we routinely circumcise penises. Although some maintained that the compromise of nicking may violate the letter of the law, it remains to be seen what kind of solution will be achieved in this matter (Dugger 1996b).

Child Pornography. It is widely believed, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) perpetuates the notion, that child pornography is pervasive and increasing. Several state and federal laws have been enacted in the last 20 years to combat this perceived social problem. The mere possession of a photograph of a naked child has been criminalized in some states. Yet, it is virtually impossible to find any commercial child pornography in the U.S.A. In fact, most of the materials seized by the FBI are private photographs of naked children—with no adults appearing in the photos and no sexual behaviors depicted (Klein 1994; Stanley 1989). Efforts to raid child-pornography businesses have routinely failed to seize any child pornography. FBI sting operations may well have arisen from the corresponding frustrations of government agencies to find any child pornography. One recent legend now circulating is the claim that the U.S. government is now the largest producer of child pornography in the world. This claim is unsubstantiated as far as we know, but, again, it reflects the anxiety of American culture over the sexuality of its children.

[Childhood Sexuality, 1997 to 2003

DAVID L. WEIS

[Update 2003: Since the publication of the original edition of the International Encyclopedia in 1997 and the single volume, Sexuality in America: Understanding Our Sexual Values and Behaviors, in 1998, the focus of writings about childhood sexuality has continued to be placed on child sexual abuse (CSA). Much of this research still continues with the assumption that early sexual experience in childhood will almost certainly be harmful (Loeb et al. 2002). Yet, meta-analyses of child sexual abuse using college samples have shown only small effects, if any. Survivors of child sexual abuse have been found to have slightly lower scores on various measures of personality adjustment. However, these findings were not significant when family environment was also assessed. Finally, males have reported different kinds of child sexual abuse experiences than females (Leonard & Follette 2002; Loeb et al. 2002; Rind, Bauserman, & Tromovitch 1998).

[One of the few voices crying in the wind against the onslaught of abstinence-only education and the characterization of childhood sex as pathological or as high-risk behavior is Judith Levine (2002). She calls this the “politics of fear.” Levine actually argues that children should be taught that most expressions of sexuality are normal and healthy. She cautions that the recent trend is potentially harmful and may lead to greater anxiety about sex and greater life-long social problems. She maintains that we need to teach our children how to experience sexual pleasure in a safe way.

[At the same time, other researchers (Alexander 2003) are beginning to explore such areas as the possible link between sex differences in the brain and male-female toy preferences, gender recognition in infancy, and other behaviors. (End of update by D. L. Weis)]

B. Adolescent Sexuality

DAVID L. WEIS

Courtship, Dating, and Premarital Sex

In stark contrast to the relative inattention given to childhood sexuality in the U.S.A., Americans have been fascinated by the sexual behavior of adolescents throughout the 20th century. One is tempted to describe the interest as an obsession. Perhaps no area of sexuality has received as much scrutiny, by both the general public and professionals, as the sexual practices of American teenagers. There have been literally hundreds of scientific studies attempting to determine the rate of adolescent premarital coitus, as well as other aspects of adolescent sexuality. The easy availability of populations to study is only one of the more-obvious reasons for this extensive research.

Since more than 90% of Americans ultimately do marry, investigations of adolescent sexual development and premarital sexual practices largely overlap. General trends have been well documented, compared to other areas of sexuality. Given the vast scope of this research, we can review only the highlights here. (For more extensive reviews of research on adolescent and premarital sexuality, see Cannon & Long 1971; Clayton & Bokemeier 1980; and Miller & Moore 1990.)

The issue of premarital sexuality and virginity has been a focus of considerable social conflict and concern throughout the 20th century, and remains so to this day. Beginning in the early years of that century, a large literature documents the continuing concern of American adults about the increasing number of teenagers who have experienced sexual intercourse prior to marriage. Interestingly, each successive birth cohort of American adults in that century has been concerned about the tendency of their offspring to exceed their own rate of premarital coitus.

Much of the professional literature has reflected these same concerns. Through much of the 20th century, the tone of most professional writings has been moralistic. Adults in the U.S.A., including most sexuality researchers, have tended to view adolescent premarital sexual intercourse, premarital sex, as a deviant behavior, as a violation of existing social norms, and as a growing social problem (Spanier 1975). Research has tended to parallel this perspective by emphasizing the costs or negative consequences of adolescent sexuality, such as sexually transmitted disease (venereal disease), “illegitimate” pregnancy, and loss of reputation (Reiss 1960). This tone may have shifted to a less-judgmental, more-analytic perspective in the 1960s and 1970s (Clayton & Bokemeier 1980). However, with the emergence of AIDS and the rise of out-of-wedlock pregnancies in the early 1980s, the general tone has reverted in recent years, with studies of “risk-taking” behavior, “at-risk” youth, and portrayals of adolescent sexuality as a form of delinquency (Miller & Moore 1990).

Trends in Adolescent Sexuality

Despite these adult concerns, it would be fair to suggest that premarital virginity has largely disappeared in the U.S.A., both as a reality and as a social ideal. As we enter the 21st century, the overwhelming majority of Americans now have sexual intercourse prior to marriage, and they begin at younger ages than in the past. “Love” has largely replaced marital status as the most valued criteria for evaluating sexual experience (Reiss 1960, 1967, 1980). Virtually all Americans believe that intimate relationships (like marriage) should be based on love, that love justifies sexual activity, and that sex with love is a more-fulfilling human experience. This view has not only been used to justify premarital sexual activity between loving partners, but has also become a criterion for evaluating marital sexuality itself and justifying a pattern of divorce and remarriage.

Premarital Sexual Behavior. These trends may not be quite as dramatic as most Americans imagine. A study of marriages in Groton, Massachusetts, from 1761 to 1775 found that one third of the women were pregnant at the time of their weddings (cited in Reiss 1980), demonstrating that premarital sex was already fairly common in the colonial period (see discussion of bundling in Section 1A, Basic Sexological Premises). Several early sexuality surveys also document that premarital sex occurred among some groups prior to the 20th century. Terman (1938) compared groups who were born in different cohorts around the beginning of the 20th century. Of those born before 1890, 50% of the men and only 13% of the women had premarital coitus. Two thirds of the men who had premarital sex did so with someone other than their future spouse, whereas two thirds of the women who had premarital sex did so only with their future spouse. For those born after 1900, two thirds of the men and nearly half of the women had premarital sex. The relative percentage having premarital sex with their fiancés also increased. Fully half of the men and 47% of the women had sexual relations with their fiancé(e)s prior to marriage.

The Kinsey team (1953) found that one quarter of the women born before 1900 reported they had premarital sex, whereas one half of those born after 1900 said they had premarital sex. Like the Terman study, the major change was an increase in the percentage of women born after 1900 who had premarital sex with their fiancés. The Kinsey study also indicated that the period of most-rapid change was from 1918 to 1930—the “Roaring Twenties.” Burgess and Wallin (1953) reported similar findings for a birth cohort born between 1910 and 1919. These studies indicated that roughly two thirds of the men born after 1900 had premarital sex. The Kinsey studies also found that there had been comparable increases in female masturbation and petting behavior as well.

It is important to note that the growth of premarital sex in the first half of the 20th century occurred primarily within the context of ongoing, intimate relationships. It appears that the percentage of males and females having premarital sex remained fairly stable through the 1950s and early 1960s. In a study of college students during the 1950s, Ehrmann (1959) found rates similar to the Kinsey figures cited above. Ehrmann found that males tended to have greater sexual experience with females from a social class lower than their own, but they tended to marry women from their own social class. Males who were “going steady” were the least likely to be having intercourse. In contrast, females who were “going steady” were the most likely to be having intercourse. In a study comparing college students in Scandinavia, Indiana, and Utah (predominantly Mormon), Christensen (1962) and Christensen and Carpenter (1962) found that rates of premarital sex vary by the norms of the culture and that guilt is most likely to occur when premarital sex is discrepant with those norms.

A second wave of increases in premarital sex seems to have occurred in the period from 1965 to 1980. A number of studies of college students through this period indicated increasing percentages of males and females having premarital coitus (Bauman & Wilson 1974; Bell & Chaskes 1968; Christensen & Gregg 1970; Robinson, King, & Balswick 1972; Simon, Berger, & Gagnon 1972; Vener & Stewart 1974). For example, Bauman and Wilson (1974) found that, for men, the rate having premarital sex increased from 56% in 1968 to 73% in 1972. For women, the increase was from 46% to 73%. There was no significant change in the number of sexual partners for either gender. Several of these studies indicate that the increases were still moderate by 1970 (Bell & Chaskes 1968; Simon et al. 1972). In an unusual study of male college students attending an eastern university in the 1940s, 1960s, and 1970s, Finger (1975) found that 45% had premarital sex in 1943-44, 62% in 1967-68, and 75% in 1969-73.

Subsequent studies have indicated that this pattern of increasing premarital sex characterized American youth in general. In a study of urban samples in the mid-1970s, Udry, Bauman, and Morris (1975) found that 45% of white teenage women had intercourse by age 20, and 80% of black women did. Roughly 10% of whites had premarital sex by age 15 and 20% of blacks did. Zelnik and Kantner found similar percentages in their studies in 1971 and 1976 (Udry, Bauman, & Morris 1975; Zelnik, Kantner, & Ford 1981).

Reports of increasing sexual activity among adolescents have not been limited to coitus. A number of researchers have reported similar increases in the rate of heavy petting (manual caressing of the genitals) through the late 1960s and 1970s (Clayton & Bokemeier 1980; Vener & Stewart 1974). There have also been reports of increasing levels of oral sex among adolescents (Haas 1979; Newcomer & Udry 1985). In some studies, teenage girls have been more likely to have participated in oral sex than intercourse, and between 16% to 25% of teens who have never had intercourse have had oral sex (Newcomer & Udry 1985). Weis (1983) has noted that this group may be involved in a transition from virginity to nonvirginity, at least among whites.

Perhaps the single best indicator of the trends occurring from 1965 to 1980 is the series of studies by Zelnik and Kantner in 1971, 1976, and 1979 (Zelnik et al. 1981). These studies, known as the National Surveys of Young Women, investigated the sexual histories of 15- to 19-year-old women. The 1971 and 1976 studies were full national probability studies while the 1979 study focused on women living in metropolitan areas. The Zelnik and Kantner research shows a dramatic rise in sexual activity for both black and white women from 1971 to 1976. The pattern of increases continued for white women through 1979, but premarital sex rates for black women remained stable from 1976 to 1979. Among metropolitan women, premarital sex rose from 30.4% in 1971 to 49.8% in 1979. For blacks, the rate moved from 53.7% in 1971 to 66.3% in 1976, and was 66.2% in 1979. The 1979 study also showed that 70% of males had premarital sexual intercourse; the figure for black men was 75% (Zelnik & Shah 1983; Zelnik et al. 1983).

In a review of these trends, Hofferth, Kahn, and Baldwin (1987) noted that females in the 1980s became sexually active at younger ages and that fewer teenagers married. As a result, the rate of premarital sex increased. The proportion of women at risk of premarital pregnancy increased dramatically from 1965 to the 1980s. The out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate among teenagers increased for both blacks and whites from 1971 to 1976. This trend continued for whites through 1982, but remained level for blacks after 1976. Finally, they noted that, for women born between 1938 and 1940, 33.3% had premarital sex by age 20. For women born between 1953 and 1955, the figure was 65.5%.

Despite recent claims in some quarters of a return to chastity and abstinence in the late 1980s and 1990s (McCleary 1992), there is no evidence of a decline in premarital sexual behavior. National data from 1988 indicate that one quarter of females have premarital sexual intercourse by age 15; 60% do so by age 19. About one third of United States males have premarital sexual intercourse by age 15, and 86% by age 19 (Miller & Moore 1990). In fact, a random telephone survey of 100 students attending a midwestern state university in 1994 found that 92% had had sexual intercourse; only 8% said they were still virgins. Nearly two thirds (63%) said that they had participated in what the survey described as a “one-night stand.” With respect to their most recent sexual intercourse, 42% reported using something to “protect” themselves. Of these, 84% reported using condoms; 16% said they used the pill (Turco 1994). If anything, the trends that have been well established throughout the 20th century appear to be continuing. Given the continuation of patterns that have been frequently cited as leading to increasing rates of premarital sex, such as industrialization, rapid transportation, dating, and “going steady,” we would not expect a reversal in what is now a century-long trend.

[Premarital Sex Before Age 15

ROBERT T. FRANCOEUR

[Update 2003: In the 1990s, about 20% of adolescents had had sexual intercourse before their 15th birthday—and one in seven of the sexually experienced 14-year-old girls had been pregnant, according to an analysis by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy (NCPTP). Based on seven studies conducted in the late 1990s—three federally financed surveys of young people by the National Survey of Family Growth, the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth—and four smaller data sets, the NCPTP analysis provides a comprehensive look at the sexual activities of 12- to 14-year- olds, a group often overlooked in discussions of adolescent sexuality.

[A variety of more-recent surveys indicate that teens are increasingly delaying their sexual initiation. Recent federal data, for instance, indicate that the birthrate for girls 14 and younger declined 43% from 1991 to 2001, while the decline for older teenagers was 27%. And according to an Alan Guttmacher Institute report, the pregnancy rate for 12- to 14-year-olds dropped 40% from 1990 to 1999.

[On the danger side, only about a third of parents of sexually experienced 14-year-olds knew that their child was having sex. While most parents said they had spoken to their young adolescent children about sex, far fewer teenagers remembered having any such conversations with their parents.

[The analysis found that young teens had plenty of opportunity to engage in sex:

[Adding to the risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are other high-risk behaviors engaged in by young nonvirgins (see Table 11).

[The fact that half to three-quarters of the experienced 12- to 14-year-olds said they had used contraception the first time they had sex indicates their first intercourse was not unexpected (Lewin 2003) (End of update by R. T. Francoeur)]

Premarital Sexual Attitudes (Permissiveness). There has also been a substantial number of studies examining the attitudes of Americans toward premarital sex, although systematic research in this area began later than research on premarital sexual behavior. Reiss (1960) used the term “permissiveness” to describe the extent to which the attitudes of an individual or a social group approved premarital sex in various circumstances. In general, research has found that premarital sex attitudes have become progressively more permissive throughout the 20th century, roughly parallel to the increases in premarital sexual behavior (Bell & Chaskes 1970; Cannon & Long 1971; Christensen & Gregg 1970; Clayton & Bokemeier 1980; Glenn & Weaver 1979; Vener & Stewart 1974). Reiss (1967) developed what has come to be called Autonomy Theory to explain this process. According to Reiss, premarital sexual permissiveness will increase in cultures where the adolescent system of courtship becomes autonomous with respect to adult institutions of social control, such as the church, parents, and the school. This appears to have happened in the U.S.A. and most other industrialized nations in the 20th century.

By far, the biggest change has been the growth of a standard that Reiss (1960, 1967, 1980) called “permissiveness with affection,” in which premarital sex is seen as acceptable for couples who have mutually affectionate relationships. This standard has grown in popularity in the U.S.A. as the double standard—the view that premarital sex is acceptable for males but not for females—has declined (Clayton & Bokemeier 1980; Reiss 1967, 1980). By 1980, a majority of adults as well as young people in the U.S.A. believed that premarital sex is appropriate for couples involved together in a serious relationship (Glenn & Weaver 1979). Moreover, although there has been a historica