As we noted in the section describing the vital statistics of the sample, there are substantial differences in the proportions of the patterned and incidental offenders who married. At one extreme are the incest offenders, all of whom married, and at the other the incidental peepers, of whom only 29 per cent married. A comparison shows that the proportions who married were essentially the same for three of our six groups: more patterned offenders were married in two groups, and in the remaining group more incidental offenders had married. These differences are in part explained by age: in every instance the group with the larger proportion of ever-married men is also the older group. Nevertheless, the differences are too large to be thus accounted for, being 20 percentage points or more. In two groups the patterned offenders have the most married men and in one group the incidental offenders lead.

The patterned offenders were more likely than the incidental offenders to have had premarital coitus with the girl they first married. This is true of four groups, and the percentages in the remaining two are essentially the same.

The length of time devoted to foreplay seems not to differ between patterned and incidental offenders in any meaningful way.

Mouth-genital contact was a diagnostic variable outside of marriage, and it proved to be so within marriage as well. In every group more patterned offenders had experienced mouth-genital contact with their wives than had the incidental offenders. For the latter the percentages range from 13 to 70, while for the former they are 47 to 72 per cent. Similarly, substantially more of the patterned offenders (roughly one third to two thirds) had experience in both fellation and cunnilingus with their wives. This orality seems to typify patterned offenders regardless of marital status.

While we realize that a husband’s report on how often his wife reaches orgasm in coitus is frequently grossly erroneous, we nevertheless compared the patterned and incidental offenders on this point. Without exception the patterned offenders reported greater orgasm frequency for their wives, though the differences were sometimes small.

The proportion of males who had extramarital coitus was larger among the patterned offenders than among the incidental in four groups, and the one instance where the reverse was true was the case of the homosexual offenders whose patterned individuals are far more homosexually oriented than the incidental. Perhaps we see here some indication of inability to resist impulse.

*394\161\2*