The incidence figures on this are too large to be really useful for comparison, but there is some evidence that fewer of the patterned than incidental offenders had premarital coitus; this is clear in three groups and suggested in an additional two. This trend, in keeping with the patterned offenders’ smaller number of petting partners, suggests some difficulty in heterosexual adjustment. However, comparison of the number of companions with whom the two groups had coitus does little or nothing to substantiate this idea; in only three groups do the patterned offenders have fewer coital partners than the incidental offenders, and the percentages are essentially the same in two groups.
Again, there is a tendency for more of the incidental offenders to have had premarital coitus with prostitutes. From roughly one half to four fifths of both sorts of offenders had paid for coitus, but the incidental offenders exceeded the patterned offenders in three groups, while there were no appreciable differences in two groups. This same ill-defined trend is seen in the number of prostitutes with whom they had premarital coitus, the incidental offenders having greater numbers in four of the six groups. This premarital trend foreshadows subsequent behavior, since we find that in a count of the number of prostitutes with whom the patterned and incidental offenders had coitus not only before but during and after marriage, the incidental offenders exceed the patterned by substantial margins in five groups, and in the sixth group there was no difference.
The various restraints upon premarital coitus, such as moral considerations, fear, and lack of opportunity, proved significant variables in our sex-offender study in general, and consequently we examined them in connection with the division of offenders into patterned and incidental. Contrary to expectations, little of significance emerged. The clearest difference was in their fear of disclosure and public opinion, offered as a reason by more patterned than incidental offenders. This sensitivity to opinion in a group later characterized by repeated offense behavior is rather unexpected, but may reflect a general insecurity about sexual matters. In this connection, it may be worth noting that in five groups more patterned than incidental offenders reported that moral restraint had been an important inhibiting factor. Lastly, in keeping with their lesser heterosexual activity, more patterned then incidental offenders reported that lack of opportunity was in part responsible for their not having had more premarital coitus.
*393\161\2*
