The aggressors vs. minors seem to consist chiefly of two varieties. First are the amoral delinquents whom we have discussed earlier-persons who function with little regard for the controls imposed by society and who have either no conscience or an unconventional one. In psychoanalytic terms, their superegos are poorly developed. The large proportion (over one third) of amoral delinquents among the aggressors vs. minors is reflected in their extensive nonsexual criminality; the aggressors vs. minors are one of the most criminal of any of the comparative groups.
An extreme but classic case, in that all the elements characteristic of amoral delinquents are present in clear form, is one of a man who was twenty-six at the time we interviewed him. He had no mental or physical defects and was, if anything, more alert and intelligent than the average. He had been reared variously by relatives and foster parents; his mother was an alcoholic prostitute. With this inauspicious start in life, he seems to have operated on the basis of doing or getting what he wanted without consideration for others or for consequences. This philosophy resulted in his spending the bulk of his postpubertal life in prisons. He lived chiefly by theft, supplementing this with some money from both heterosexual and homosexual prostitution. Earlier in life he had also had a substantial amount of sexual activity with a variety of animals. He belonged to gangs of the leatherjacket-switchblade sort. He drank in moderation and had experimented with drugs, just escaping real addiction. When his desires were opposed by others, or when he was angered or fearful, he used a knife. While his assertion that he had murdered may be exaggerated, he was known to have stabbed persons both in and out of prison, and once attacked a prison guard with scissors. He had had coitus with a large number of females, including his mother, an aunt, and a cousin, and homosexual activity with a larger number of males. With this description in mind, it is not surprising to learn that he had forced coitus upon a number of females, including several who fit our category of minors, and rape was his favorite masturbation fantasy.
The second commonest variety of aggressors vs. minors (constituting between one quarter and one third) is one that is closest to the subculture offender described under offenders vs. minors, but which also often shares some elements of the amoral delinquent. This is the double-standard variety. One might describe males of this sort as looking upon young postpuberal girls as fair game if they allow themselves to be picked up or if they give other evidence of laxity, and feeling that the use of moderate force is justified if a female attempts to renege on an implied promise. These are males who would not seize upon strangers, nor would they brandish weapons, but they will wrestle with and slap their dates or girls they have picked up. Their backgrounds are more stable and conventional than those of the amoral delinquents, and they are much less criminal. Two illustrative cases follow.
The first is an eighteen-year-old grammar school graduate who supported himself with semiskilled work. He had had a modest amount of both heterosexual and homosexual experience, the latter being in part situational due to naval service. He had no criminal record nor any other antisocial history. The only ominous note in his preoffense history was his discharge from the Navy because he could not, or would not, take orders in a reasonable manner. Subsequently, he met a young girl in a movie, arranged a date with her, and took her for an automobile ride. He attempted to obtain coitus and during the ensuing argument became angry and mistreated the girl, evidently mainly by slapping her. This led to his conviction of assault and battery with intent to commit a felony, a conviction earning him 60 days and a small fine. This sort of behavior is actually not uncommon, but only rarely does it result in legal action.
A somewhat more violent and confused case is one of a man of twenty-one who, with three male friends, picked up six young girls hanging around a bar and cafe because the friend who was to have taken them home had broken the axle of his car. The males described the girls as “tramps” and decided they would willingly provide coitus. The whole group drove to an orchard where they continued drinking and began petting. One couple got in an argument and eventually a fight, whereupon four of the girls became frightened and departed on foot. The remaining two girls were either prevented from leaving or persuaded to stay, but in any event they were subsequently slapped around enough to produce a swollen lip on one girl and a swollen nose and eye on the other. One girl was thus forced into coitus, but the other was able to prevent penetration. The man whom we interviewed came from a conventional middle- to lower-middle-class background, his sexual life (wholly heterosexual) was not unusual, and he had been a rather active member of a Pentecostal religious sect. The psychologist described him as “. . . fairly alert and intelligent … a socially gauche person who has little understanding of the nature of ordinary interpersonal and heterosexual relationships.” The offender, while admitting his behavior conflicted with his religious principles, rationalized his going out with the young girls by saying “. . . everyone was going out with girls under eighteen, so why not me?” and excused the force by labeling the girls as “tramps” and “teasers.”
Aside from these two varieties the remaining aggressors vs. minors in our sample do not lend themselves to categorization. Definite pedophilia seems involved in only two or three cases. Mental defect does not seem an important factor in more than one instance, and no senile deteriorates were in the sample. Sociosexual underdevelopment such as we saw among the offenders vs. children is suggested in but one case. Only two or three cases show definite psychotic manifestations, but this is to be expected since the majority of the unmistakably insane were confined in institutions where we did no interviewing. The combination of mental defect, psychoneurosis, and alcohol, which was so evident among the aggressors vs. children, seems unimportant among the aggressors vs. minors.
*101\161\2*
