Archive of Sexology: Growing Up Sexually

The reference to Kohl (1911) is interesting to me from a historical perspective. See: August Kohl:  Pubertät und Sexualität: Untersuchungen zur Psychologie des Entwicklungsalters

Growing Up Sexually

Re: A rarely explored dimension in curricular concepts of sexuality is that of the culturally ingrained hesitation to utilise developmental approaches, and to address developmental issues, at all.

Excerpt: An illuminating example, the work of Hermann Rohleder demonstrates a definite evolution taking the reader from of the justification of pathologising to discussions of possible biological mechanisms of normality, which ultimately become phase-identifying. In 1921[7] Rohleder unfolds a developmental theory consisting of a 3-stage erotisation of the brain by inner secretions, apparently equal to that of Kohl (1911)[8]. The curriculum thus reads: till 8 [or 10] an absolute ignorance (unconscious sexuality, like “gewisse Koketterie kleiner Mädchen” and exhibitionism; some Onanie might be physiologically conscious), then till 12 a stadium in-between unconsciousness and consciousness (“ein stadium der Ahnungen, d. h. die Empfindungen werden deutlicher aber noch nicht ganz deutlich”[9]) and finally a full consciousness of function and social purpose.

Full text:

Growing Up Sexually

The Sexual Curriculum (Oct., 2002)

[to Volume II Index]

[to Main Index Page]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [I] [II] [III] [IV]

 

Janssen, D. F. (Oct., 2002). Growing Up Sexually. Volume II: The Sexual Curriculum: The Manufacture and Performance of Pre-Adult Sexualities. Interim Report. Amsterdam, The Netherlands

2 [previous chapter] [next chapter]

Sexologising Childhood. Historical Antecedents of “Developmental Sexology”

 

 

“[…] and I never got the peaches!”[1]

 

“B’li yadaim, b’li yadaim”[2]

 

 

 

Summary: This chapter identifies selected historical antecedents of contemporary sexological conceptualisations of the child, with a reference to ethnographic import. First, it is argued that “developmental sexologies” or ontologies are cultural constructs that describe and legitimise given curricular operationalisation efforts. It is suggested that the theme of age salience in early sexology is neglected by historians. Specifically, masturbation evolved from a poorly curricularised pathology discourse (until 1850s) to one that seemed to be based solely on phase ideologies (1905 to late 1960s). A breakthrough in developmental sexology was established by Von Krafft-Ebing’s considering all prepubertal sexual phenomena as “paradoxic” to nature, a pathology not fully eradicated until the 1930s. Slowly, pathology gave way to a stress on early sexuality as “play” and “experimentation”, as illustrated by the ethnographic notes of Tessmann. This seemed to have been arrived at by the transitional recognition of “love” development. It was argued that the influx of non-western data, single authors excepted, was markedly delayed past key theoretical efforts (Freud); the systematic, and later numeric, cross-cultural approach is still in its infancy, a surprising fact regarding the wide interest in cross-cultural sexology today. Highlights are briefly summarised.

 

 

Contents [up]

 

Sexologising Childhood. Historical Antecedents of “Developmental Sexology”

Contents [up]

2.0 Introduction [up] [Contents]

2.1 The “Developmental Sexology” of Cultures: The Vicarious Theme of Curricularism [up] [Contents]

2.2 The Masturbation Paradigm: “Onanopathies” and the Relevance of Age [up] [Contents]

2.3 Paradoxia Sexualis: Shifting Discourses Surrounding the Sexologised Child [up] [Contents]

2.4 Themes of Rehearsal and Play: Limited Historical Notes [up] [Contents]

2.5 Savage Childhood and Precocity: Early to Modern Observations [up] [Contents]

2.5.1 Anthropology and Play Sex: Günther Tessmann [up] [Contents]

2.6 The History of Cross-Cultural Research of Developmental Sexuality: A Short Appraisal [up] [Contents]

2.7 Shifting Narratives and Uses in Exocultural Developmental Sexology: The Moral Index [up] [Contents]

2.8 Summarising Notes [up] [Contents]

Notes [up] [Contents]

 

 

2.0 Introduction [up] [Contents]

 

“For those born and educated after the year 2000, we will be their history, and they will be mystified by our self-imposed, moralistic ignorance of the principles of sexual and erotic development in childhood”[3]. Only a few authors have contributed to this history of attitudes concerning pre-“mature” sexuality as a science or construct besides touching on the history of masturbatory regulation of children. A full review and bibliography of relevant contributions being available elsewhere[4], I would like in following paragraphs examine man’s shifting ethnographic, folkloristic and clinical notions of growing up sexually, for the occasion of this limited discussion divided in subchapters covering the doctor’s ideas (age stratified concepts of “cheiromanic” pathology (§2.2); and the historical employment of medicalising attitudes toward sexual behaviour timing (§2.3), the “own-backyard” attitude (the historical concepts of sexual curricula including “play” and “rehearsal” phases (§2.4), the “other-side-of-the-fence” dimension (the use and neglect of anthropological data by early sexologists (§2.5), the nascent cross-culturalist approach, (§2.6), and the culturalist moral / utilitarian context (§2.7).

 

The basic argument explored here is the basic undercurrent motivating discourses as they take their form within their respective historical setting. This undercurrent is hypothesised to be represented by the political tradition curricularising trajectories of change, that is, operationalising pathways of differentiation by culturally legitimised agendas. In less abstract terms, the field of erotic possibilities, which is notoriously large in homo sapiens sapiens, is governed by a social grid organising chronology and direction of events. This view has not been outstanding in today’s sexological heritage. There is a definite historical process here addressed as the academic sexologisation of prepuberty, as evidenced by countings of numeric studies on my behalf [see results in pdf]. Leaving methodological problems associated with this finding for what they are, it would be more interesting to take a brief look at this sexological heritage before continuing the task of situating ourselves conceptually within postmodern sexological realism.

 

2.1 The “Developmental Sexology” of Cultures: The Vicarious Theme of Curricularism [up] [Contents]

 

A rarely explored dimension in curricular concepts of sexuality is that of the culturally ingrained hesitation to utilise developmental approaches, and to address developmental issues, at all. Psychodynamic theory, of course, established a radical centralisation of psychosexual phases as a human psychology and pathopsychology. Before Money’s claim to phrases such as “paediatric sexology”, earlier thoughts only vaguely resemble such initiatives, originating as they did from a stereotypical medical dichotomy[5]. Early curricularising theories about the sexual development of man sought to have sex start at puberty[6]. Early American, French and Italian sexology, however fragmentary and unsystematically, integrated earliness in the pathological spectrum of sexuality. Narrative at first ranged from moralistic though inconsequential (Acton, Maudsley) to romantic (Mantegazza). Later, German but also French and English authors began using the child as an illustration of hypothetical biomedical models of pathology (Cullerre, Féré), but hesitated to regard the child as a clue to normal developmental models (Bell, Ellis, Scott).

 

An illuminating example, the work of Hermann Rohleder demonstrates a definite evolution taking the reader from of the justification of pathologising to discussions of possible biological mechanisms of normality, which ultimately become phase-identifying. In 1921[7] Rohleder unfolds a developmental theory consisting of a 3-stage erotisation of the brain by inner secretions, apparently equal to that of Kohl (1911)[8]. The curriculum thus reads: till 8 [or 10] an absolute ignorance (unconscious sexuality, like “gewisse Koketterie kleiner Mädchen” and exhibitionism; some Onanie might be physiologically conscious), then till 12 a stadium in-between unconsciousness and consciousness (“ein stadium der Ahnungen, d. h. die Empfindungen werden deutlicher aber noch nicht ganz deutlich”[9]) and finally a full consciousness of function and social purpose.

 

2.2 The Masturbation Paradigm: “Onanopathies” and the Relevance of Age [up] [Contents]

 

The early history of masturbation is well-studied[10]. Masturbation historians only rarely addressed the issue of absolute and relative age and its possible implications for sexual behaviour curriculum ideologies. Elia (1987), for instance, hardly reveals a clue to curricularised attitudes to masturbation. Rousseau’s attitude toward masturbation was both complex and ambiguous (Lejeune, 1974)[11]. Tissot’s arguments were specific to the pedagogical implications of masturbation, but these are rarely addressed.

 

First, there is the occasional emphasis on spermatorrhoea which could not have been valuable in childhood masturbation, though little is known about early medical appraisal of ejacularche (see however Schoondermark, 1902:p26-7)[12]. Second, numerous references to “youth” can be found as early as the 17th century, meaning everything from children to young men (e.g. Kett, 1971:p285)[13].

 

Masturbation in childhood and youth was covered by Schetsche and Schmidt (1996)[14], who distinguish four stages in the pedagogical concept of masturbation (p14-5). First (17th century), the “child” had to be taught that it was sexual; later, it had to be taught that it was immoral; still later, it was to be controlled as an urge; and finally (latter half 18th cent.) it could not be mentioned unless in a mystified manner. As Flandrin (1976:p280-3)[15] points out, the first theologist known to express concern for the carnal sins of children was Jean de Gerson (1363-1429), praeses of the Parisian University. Until the 18th century, there would have been silence on the matter. Unlike during the French Enlightenment, in the last quarter of the 18th century, it was said that German authors “extended” the then established risk group to include toddlers and even babies (Mortier and Colen, 1995:p834)[16]. By the 19th century, Rosenberg (1973:p136-7)[17] argues, “[n]ot even the youngest child could be presumed immune; one physician noted that even infants of eighteen months had been taught the “horrid practice” [note]. Perhaps the instances of “furious masturbation” which had been observed in such infants demonstrated the power of this instinct; but the very strength of this animal attribute only underlined the need for controlling it”[18].

 

The first article known to cover specifically children (young girls) is probably Zimmerman (1779)[19]. By the middle of the 19th century, masturbation by “little” children was apparently something of an issue in medical Europe as judged by articles by Van Bambeke (1859)[20] and Behrend (1860)[21], and later by Fleischmann (1878)[22]. In 1841, puberty (“Het intreden der jongelingschap”) was seen as a “natural” cause of masturbation, as was the frequently mentioned case of “very young sinners” afflicted by “[a] weak, tender morbid condition of the body” [23]. In 1854, it was recommended that “[i]l ne faut pas que l’on ignore que ce sont souvent de très jeunes enfants qui se livrent avec fureur à l’onanisme”[24]. By that time, paediatricians were well aware of their involvement in the case[25]. Before this period it is suggested that masturbation was battled with little respect for age, but focussed on adolescents. In 1861, Debay[26] reported that genitals before age 8 “restent muets”, whereas in “adolescence” (ages 8-14), thus, preceding “puberty” (15-21), masturbation might occur. However, “les désirs ne se ferairent pas encore sentir si des jeunes gens ou des adolescents instruit par les premiers ne faisaient naître ces désirs et n’anticipaient sur l’ordre naturel”. Masturbation was covered by most German-language paediatric Lehrbuchs (Steiner, Biedert, Vogel, Von Heubner, Unger, Henoch, Neumann, etc.), perhaps more regularly than in early non-German paediatrics. Steiner ([1873:p335])[27]: “Wat betreft den leeftijd, waarop deze ondeugd gepleegd wordt, heb ik mij meermalen overtuigd, dat het eerste begin dikwijl reeds bij zeer kleine kinderen, van een à twee jaar, wordt waargenomen”; he further refers to one Marjolin claiming sexual phenomena at the breast (Steiner seems to describe an infantile orgasm).

 

By the beginning of the 20th century it was generally known that “[i]n man at the age of puberty the sexual emotion awakes powerfully, while active social life opens before the young man with all its exigencies”[28]. Freud (1905, 1912)[29] described three phases of masturbation, and pathologised persistence into adulthood (cf. Szasz, 1970 [1972:p233-4][30]). Stanley Hall and Havelock Ellis mentioned masturbation in the light of adolescent age social immaturity, a theme extending well into the 1960s. Freudian curricularisation of masturbation was followed by most psychoanalysts well into the second half of the 20th century, though with a variable degree of freedom and alterations[31].

 

Concluding, it can be argued that the concept of phase-specific nosologising and denosologising was gradually introduced into the well established masturbation discourse. Phases were not initially of much relevance, and even later used only as a mere expansion of the patient population. In the late 19th century it evolves as an (at least in part) specifically paediatric discourse, and in the early 20th century it is effectively transplanted into the pedagogical realm, as a purely curricular concept and concern.

 

 

2.3 Paradoxia Sexualis: Shifting Discourses Surrounding the Sexologised Child [up] [Contents]

 

In a previous project[32], I have provided an examination of early (1877-1931) German-language clinical sexologists’ usage of narrative and scientific rationale in conceptualising prepubertal sexuality. Basic arguments presented in this overview included (1) the principle of bio-othering of the child within the sexological realm in the course of potentialising puberty as a “libidarchic” (nascent libidinous, awakening) storm; and (2) the pre-1930 principles of nosologising the moral delineation of curricular categories in human sexology. I aimed to challenge archaic endocrinological arguments as forming a leading undercurrent in the curricular concept of early sexuality most strikingly embodied by Von Krafft-Ebings’ paradoxia sexualis category, an a priori pathological interpretation of sexual expressions preceding puberty. Further, I aimed to explore the shifting balance of endocrinological, neurological and pedagogical concepts and narratives in the definition of sexuality as they pertain to the differentiation of moral categories associated with the timing problem in sexology.

It was clearly demonstrated that Von Krafft-Ebing lacked most of an “Ellisian” concept of the sexual life span, and sought to explain earliness in terms of degeneration, and neuropathic deterioration. Contrary to former authors, Freud’s infantile sexuality was discussed in a tone of voice that could be designated “dispassionate, disinterested, and strikingly secular and amoral”[33]. It is also apparent how authors furiously rejected by Freud, particularly Moll and later Stekel, chose a developmental approach that can be called progressive or at least multidisciplinary and modernist. Freud himself referred to Ellis, but never adopted his progressive developmental perspective. Rather, Freud merely utilised his peculiar bi/triphasic model as a tool for discussing adult psychopathology.

 

 

2.4 Themes of Rehearsal and Play: Limited Historical Notes [up] [Contents]

 

One function of studying children’s “play”, as Mergen (1975:p400)[34] argues, lies in

 

“[…] the understanding it provides of the development of the social sciences and their impact through schools and other institutions. The problem then becomes, not what children actually did, but what adult students of children’s play thought they were doing. By looking closely at the origins of the academic studies of children’s play, it is possible to show the relation of these studies to other intellectual and social concerns and then make some observations on the connections between play and culture”.

 

Early German medical sexology has discussed sexual expressions before puberty rather extensively (Janssen, 2001)[35], but few authors seemed inclined to discuss the matter in positive terms of function or value. Schrenk-Notzing (1895:p35)[36], for instance, suggested that, since “playing “pappa and mamma” or “being engaged” may attain pathological significance”, the children should be observed at play, “to ascertain whether they there give evidence of sexual excitement, and whether the manner of play corresponds with the sex”. If so indicated, “energetic treatment should begin immediately, if possible under the direction of a physician educated in psychology, and capable of the employment of suggestion” (cf. p51-3, 73).

 

Langfeldt (1981:p109-10)[37] pointed to the “worship” of childhood sexuality in 1410, discussed by Beccadelli (1908)[38] and in European folk tales. However, only a few references to childhood sexual behaviours are made in early documents (see Stone, 1977:p510). These include play at copulation of French sheep herding boys and girls, and early 17th century eight-year-olds (“Instead of sticking little sticks up their [rectums] as children do, pretending to give each other enemas, he lustly screwed them without knowing what he was doing”)[39]. A painting by Coypel (ca 1770) entitled Kindliche Spiele might or might not be considered “erotic” by his contemparies[40]. Another drawing by Fragonard with the same title[41], may prove less dubious. References collected by Van Ussel (1967:p150-3/ 1968 [1971:p171-3]) suggested to the author that until the end of the 18th century children indeed “played sexually” freely until about age seven, and in a lesser degree so until puberty. “In the moral and pedagogical literature of the first half of the 18th century, we find no restrictions against […] pre-pubertal sexual expressions; in the second half of this century it appears that a repressive trend sets in such as, up to then had never been witnessed”. At the closing of the 18th century, Réstif de la Bretonne[42] names a game called “Little Wolf”, which was claimed to be five centuries old, and quite innocent, had it not been for occasional adolescents’ participation. Kellogg (1881) names “sham marriages” and “imitating the “Black Crook” “.

 

Havelock Ellis ([1936, I:p36-7])[43] was one of the prominent to speculate on the rehearsive aspect of early sexual behaviour. He (1901)[44] also presented some of the very first normative sexual histories in clinical literature since Von Krafft-Ebings’ work with the sexual anamnesis in the 1870s. The autobiographical approach was also noted in the homosexual discourse (Hirschfeld). Ellis writes:

 

“A kind of rudimentary sexual intercourse between children, as Bloch has remarked [[45]], occurs in many parts of the world, and is recognized by their elders as play. This is, for instance, the case among the Bawenda of the Transvaal [[46]], and among the Papuans of Kaiser-Wilhelms-Land, with the approval of the parents, although much reticence is observed [[47]]. […] “Playing at pa and ma” is indeed extremely common among children in genuine innocence, and with a complete absence of viciousness; and is by no means confined to children of low social class. […] [These games] are of the nature of play, in so far as play is a preparation for the activities of later life, though, unlike the games, they are not felt as play”.

 

Stressing the normative (unlike Bloch), Ellis refers to Groos, who as one of the first posited the concept of preparatory “love play”, drawing a parallel between animal and human phenomena[48]. Probably, “love games” among children were commonly known at the turn of the century. Chaimberlain (1896:p200)[49] stated: “The numerous love games, which Mr. Newell [[50]] and Miss Gomme [[51]] enumerate, such as “Knights of Spain”, “Three kings”, “Here comes a Duke a-roving”, “Thread, thread the Green Grass”, “I’ll give to you a Paper of Prins”, “There she stands a lovely Creature”, “Green Grow the Rushes, O!”, “The Widow with Daughters to marry”, “Philander’s March”, “Marriage”, etc., corresponding to many others all over the globe, evidence the social instincts of childhood as well as the imitative tendencies of youth”[52]. In a series of 83 games collected in Washington, D.C., by Babcock (1888)[53], thirty were “love games”[54]. In the Gomme collection, 30 were “Courtship and Lovemaking Games” apart from 29 “Marriage Games” (1898, II:p461-2). A milestone work was presented by Bell (1902)[55]. The paper provides a range of heterosocial games thought to provide occasion for kissing and hugging, illustrated by many cases, including “love demonstrations” lasting into adulthood and intergenerational crushes. Critically, “[l]ove between children of the opposite sex bears much the same relation to that between adults as the flower does to the fruit, and has about as little physical sexuality in it as an apple-blossom has of the apple that develops from it” (p333)[56]. Was it only after Freud that love games could be discussed as sex games or were they indeed platonic? In Anthropophyteia, Adler (1911)[57] lists nine “typical” “erotic” games of childhood. The alternative hypothesis reads that Victorian children indeed played “love” more typically than they played “sex”. Later work also mentions “love tokens”[58] but skips the sex; these authors preferred to study school environments, but apparently missed or (did not find) the positive evidences of heterosexuality found in numerous studies in the 1980s through 1990s (see Appendix III).

Moll (1898, I:p44-5; 1908 [1912:p101-2])[59] discussed Groos’ rehearsal paradigm in extenso, yet with precaution. Speaking of coital movements in animals, he argued:

 

“The view that in such cases the movements are imitative merely is untenable, for young animals which have never had any opportunity of watching the physical manifestations of love in older ones, will nevertheless themselves exhibit such manifestations. At most it remains open to dispute whether in these cases it is still permissible to speak of love-games, as do Groos and others, or whether we should not rather speak simply of manifestations of the activity of the sexual impulse. But the dispute does not involve differences of opinion regarding matters of fact; it is purely terminological. For, in the first place, Groos himself, who regards the games of childhood as a form of training, suitable to the nature of the individual, for its subsequent activities, recognises that games are sexually differentiated. He believes that we have to do, not, as some think, with imitative processes, but with preliminary practice, subserving the purposes of self-development; and he considers that girls naturally turn to games adapted to train them for their subsequent profession of motherhood, whilst boys incline to games corresponding to their predestined activity as men. Even if we accept this theory of Groos, we are compelled to recognise a sexual element in the games of youthful animals. In addition, however, we must note the fact that Groos gives a wider extension to the concept of play than other writers, and that he regards as love-games processes which others might perhaps describe as sexual manifestations. According to Groos, caressing contact is to be regarded as playful when, in the serious intercourse between the sexes, such contact appears to be merely a preliminary activity rather than an end in itself. Here two cases are possible: in one the carrying out of the instinctive activity to its real end is prevented by incapacity or by ignorance; in the other, it is prevented by a deliberate exercise of will. The former occurs in children; the latter, often enough in adults. Whatever view we hold regarding this matter, the sexually differentiated love-games of young animals must be regarded as a manifestation of the sexual life”.

 

Still, Moll ([1912:p174]) only hesitantly argued that mere imitation, like playing house, or playing “prostitution” may not be signs of a Paradoxic urge. Gradually, early sex as play, or even as game, came to be accepted as a routine narrative. Neologist John Money is especially known for his explorations[60] in naturalising the concept within a comparative (combined ethnographic and zoologist) localisation. Money’s “sexual rehearsal play” theme surfaced in a 1970 article[61], although his human “coital play” was mentioned before in the 1960s.

Despite this lobbying, most “complete” discussions on children’s play never include sexual elements (e.g., Hartley and Goldenson, 1957:p102)[62].

 

 

2.5 Savage Childhood and Precocity: Early to Modernist Observations [up] [Contents]

 

The precocity of the savage child was frequently noted by early sexologists (Bloch, 1902[63], II:p254; Margold, 1926:p644-5; Crawley[64], 1929:p11-2, 13-4; Guyon[65], 1929:p64; Pedrals, 1950:p16-8; Edwardes and Masters, 1961:p80; Ellis, ([1936, I:p36-7]). Coital licence as well as sexual urges started early in many pre-industrial settings, reviewers argued (e.g., Ploß and Bartels [1918, I:p146, 187-8][66]; Ploß [1912, II:p519-53][67]; Karsch-Haak, 1911)[68]. The anthropological implications for sexual development theories could only be discussed in pathological terms by pre-1900 writers (an exception seems to be Ostrowsky cited by Buch, 1882:p45)[69]. For instance, Hammond[70] remarked that he observed public intercourse among 3 to 4-year-olds in New York as well as in New Mexico, while also citing similar observations by Godard in Cairo, in his case of proving a causal relationship between early sexual excess and impotence. Forel[71] argued that in some tribes an “unbelievable” spontaneous sexual urge exists among 7 and 8-year-olds, based on a hereditary Satyriasis or Nymphomania. Ploß took a wholly moral attitude, along with a largely indirect approach to the problem, in a (long) chapter on “Kindheit und Keuschheit. Das Beispiel der Erwachsenen”[72]. Ploß and Bartels (ibid.) conclude that “even in children the urge, which we would judge to be a great vice, is satisfied at liberty, but for them is mere “play”. Boys and girls have intercourse with each other in manners, though naïve, we abhor even when encountered in adults” (transl. DJ). Buschan ([1921:p248]; 1927, II:p82)[73] discussed the matter in a matter-of-fact attitude (“Naturalia non sunt turpia”), as did Von Reitzenstein (1931:p191)[74], Crawley (1929:p13), Kinsey et al. (1953:p108)[75], and Erikson (1950 [1963:p86])[76] visualising coital practices as “primarily playful imitation”.

 

 

2.5.1 Anthropology and Play Sex: Günther Tessmann [up] [Contents]

 

The nascent anthropological recognition of play sexuality is nicely illustrated by the notes of Günther Tessmann. In 1911[77], he addresses the issue of emics and etics when discussing Pangwe (Africa) children’s sexual excursions:

 

“Ich schicke voraus, daß ich einiges, was die Pangwe selbst noch als Spiel betrachten, nicht erwähne, weil es nach meiner auffassung in andere Gebiete der Volkskunde gehört, so z.B. rechne ich die Vorversuche zum Geschlechtlichen verkehr, die allerdings vielfach im Anschluß an “Spiele”, besonders an das “Familiespielen”, statthaben, nicht zu den Spielen, obgleich die Pangwe sie mir unter dem Namen [eboba’ne-bo’ngo] als richtiges “Spiel” aufzählten, ferner nicht Handlungen und Beschäftigungen, die einen ersten Zweck im Auge haben. Freilich ist hier die Grenze sehr schwer zu ziehen, da man sich darüber streiten kann, was wirklich “ernstiger Zweck” und was nur “spielerische Betätigung” ist”.

 

He (Tessmann, 1911:p250; Tessmann, 1913, II:p252-3)[78] notes how children begin to imitate parental life with ages 5 and 6, and “mit 8-9 Jahren ist das “Elternspielen” schon nichts weiter als ein zielbewußter Geschlechtsverkehr, bleibt aber in der allgemeinen Auffassung ein Spiel, das mir unter [zwei Namen] direckt unter “Kinderspielen” aufgeführt wurde […]”. Later Tessmann (1921 [1998:p151-2][79]; 1934a, [I]:p226-7)[80] observed that Baifa boyhood sexual life develops in two stages: one, as in the Pangwe, of general promiscuity (“Bei den Baifa heißen diese geschlechtlichen Vorübungen tepampam te b[o]bte“), and one of passive homosexuality with older brothers, at age 5 or 6 onwards. When puberty approaches, the father would warn the daughter: “Jetzt ist das “tepampam” zu Ende!”. Other tribes in East-Cameroon were covered by Tessmann (1928)[81] on his 1913/1914 field work. Among the Mbum (p336), “zwischen Kindern beiderlei Geschlechts bis etwa zu sieben Jahren kommen mehr spielerische Versuche zum Geschlechtsverkehr vor und zwar wie bei den Pangwe und anderen Negern auch, beim “Familienspiel”, und zwar im Busch oder, während der Abwesentheit der Eltern, in den Häusern”. Having become so much accustomed to these “Spielereien”, Tessmann (1934b, I:p204)[82] notes his inability to observe the “Mann-und-Frau-Spiel” in Baja children.

 

 

2.6 The History of Cross-Cultural Research of Developmental Sexuality: A Short Appraisal [up] [Contents]

 

A full review being offered elsewhere[83], a brief characterisation of the “ethnographic” concept of psychosexual development seems to be in place. Freud never studied children via a direct approach, and, apart from fragmentary remarks, did not instrumentalise his theories with ethnographic data. This is hardly surprising given the fragmentary nature before 1905, or even before Freud’s death. Apart from incidental authors such as Margold and Guyon, and many pseudoacademic cross-cultural inventory efforts, a 1945 work by Ford, four decades after the proposition of Freudian psychosexual theory addressed shortly the beginnings of “reproductive life”. Most authors in the 1950-1970 era examined psychoanalytic formulations mostly by using Whiting and Child’s data, who themselves wrestled with the charisma of Freudianism. The cross-cultural approach regarding sexual “restraint” issues (associated with the SCCS ratings) ended somewhere around the middle of the 1980s, when the ethnological approach to childhood sexuality matters was fairly well established. The work by Ford and Beach (1951) still provides the most comprehensive descriptive data collection, even though it is fragmentary and lacks a sound theoretical or hypothetical perspective, as did subsequent authors for over half a century.

From the middle of the 1980s onward, and particularly in the 1990s, Anglo-American sociologists have employed an intriguing “ethnographic” mode of researching playground sexualities[84]. This has sensitised the concept of “sexual cultures” as well as the cultural/”culturalist” and “cross-culturalist” entry.

 

 

2.7 Shifting Narratives and Uses in Exocultural Developmental Sexology: The Moral Index [up] [Contents]

 

To expand on the discussion of 20th century academic agenda (§1.2), a general outline can be made for the moral and ethical overtures involved in non-endocultural developmental sexology. As argued, pre-1900 ethnographic observations on sexual upbringing were infrequent and accusatory (§2.5). Instances were to support the general negativist thesis on savage’s promiscuity, and lack of moral standards. A changing spectrum was announced by the influx of Freudianist projects of the 1920s (Malinowski, Mead, Róheim; cf. §1.2.1). Ethnographic works, at times augmented by personalist input, were frequently used in bitter complaints at the address of so-addressed “Western” sexual discourse (Guyon[85]; e.g., Atlas, Africa; Introduction). Kinsey’s [et al.] use of ethnologia was biased to demonstrate the precocious (notably 1953:p108n8) and thus to counterbalance (oppose) “Western” discourse. Levine[86] notes: “Kinsey repeatedly implied that the sexual customs of the West were unique, or nearly so, and based wholly on arbitrary assumptions. His vague references to anthropological data were highly selective. In his eyes, “the reactions of our social organization to the various types of behavior are the things that need study”. Kinsey declared that mores originated neither in accumulated experience nor in scientific examination and objectively gathered data. The sociologist and the anthropologist find the origins of such customs in ignorance and superstition, and in the attempts of every group to set itself apart from its neighbors” “.

 

As for a different contextualism, O’Carroll[87] legitimised his use of Ford and Beach in “righting the balance” of noncoverage by mass media. Brongersma’s use of ethnology and history in a way typical of much of the fragmentary “movement” culture facilitated his life-long critique of hegemonic representation of what he phrases “boy-love”, in a project to emancipate the male homo-ehebophilic “type” from other configurations in the age/gender field. The attempt lacks a theoretical basis, though. In this advocatist context, it is often argued that “strong emotional barriers still have to be broken down in the large majority of people before the attitudes and norms of society can be changed to the point where it is generally realised that children really do have sexual organs responding to lust, and that the sexual excitement of a child does not always come from outside, but arises from the child’s inner self”[88]. Mark that the original 1986 Danish work was edited by what called itself the ” “Trobriands” Collective of Authors”. Certainly, the sparks of “advocatist” movement never accomplished a sustainable academic cultural-historical assembly (as did the “gay” identified movement)[89]. The contribution for the anthropological cause, therefore, remains limited.

 

Illustratively for writings in the 1970s and early 1980s, Malinowski’s work was partially reprinted in a pamphlet entitled “Kindliche Sexualität bei Naturvölkern” in a German project signed “Archiv Antiautoritäre Erziehung” (1978). By the late seventies, Yates (1978) begins her “cultural” chapter, which entails a juxtaposition of Irish Inis Beag with Polynesian Mangaia, with a lamentation on “our culture”: “Austere and frightening, the concept of sex as a necessary evil and abstinence as Christ-like remains basic to Christianity and to our culture”. Her exposé, we are to believe, is a challenge of “the most erotically barren” place on earth with “erotic Eden”, representing “our” choice between “minimization” and “constriction” on the one hand, and “promotion” of sexual “development” on the other. Straver’s (1986) interactionist interpretation of Ribal’s (1973) colloquia within a juxtaposition format of Scandinavian and U.S. narratives, had, as I have argued (§1.1.3.1), implicitly normalised Scandinavian and criticised American trajectories. More Americans have voiced their interpretation of contemporary American discourses as “anti-sexualist” (§3.1.2.1; North America), yet without much of a cross-cultural claim. The SCCS studies reversed original negative (1970s) to positive (1984) scales of “restraint” (§s 3.0.2, 7.1.1) after a long tradition of discussing “permissiveness” among cross-culturalists. Lloyd DeMause, recycling 1970 statements in the 1990s, utilised a particularly brutal use of ethnomisic and anti-anthropologist narrative in reducing history and all culture to abuse and “incest” categories (e.g., Atlas, Middle East; etc.); this effort appears illustrative in the selective and ethnocentric revival of Freudian and anti-Freudian narrative. Few studies if any, however, justify “Western” universality claims regarding traumatogenetic trajectories in cases of subculturally or culturally endemic “illegal” practices (chs. 14 and 9). Officially, it can be argued, there is a striking though not perfect uniformity of legislative curriculum among contemporary “Western” nations (Graupner), the minor differences not adequately legitimisable. The subgenre concerned with “historical” and “cross-cultural” “backgrounds” to “abuse” in the 1980s and 1990s has had little effect on this curriculum.

 

2.8 Summarising Notes [up] [Contents]

 

Considering the preceding chapter, the following arguments can be made:

 

(1) Except for a seemingly expansive mode of including children in masturbation nosologies based on orgasmogenic principles, there was hardly any formal (e.g., clinical) concept of children’s sexuality before such end-1900 authors as Groos, Moll, Hall, Ellis et al. (§2.4). At any rate, curricularisation was not an apparent issue in the work of early masturbation theorists, although it would generally be operationalised as a pedagogical matter even before 1800 (Vogel);

(2) Until 1930, and lateral of the growing tolerance for psychodynamic perspectives, a considerable amount of clinicians reiterated Krafft-Ebingian pathologising of prepubertal timing of sexual phenomena, regarding it literally “paradoxic” to (at least) nature (§2.3);

(3) Modern operationalisations of prepubertal sex as “play”, “imitation” and “experimentation” diffusely arose in late 19th century authors, before Freud (§2.2). In a minor degree, this seemed to be legitimised (Ellis) or merely identified (Ploß / Bartels) through the ethnographic case; another reference was the zoological (Groos). The rehearsal/play paradigm was first tested within the “love” game context, steadily gained popularity with the application to genital behaviour, and was later integrated in ethno/zoologically informed theoretical models by Money and others;

(4) From the 1920s onward, a growing number of sexologists included ethnographic data to legitimise “play” and “rehearse” operationalisations of prepubertal sexuality, where formerly ethnographers (e.g., Ploß et al.) utilised an altogether moralist approach coupled with pathofysiological claims. The utilisation of anthropological data shifted from blatant moralism to apologies of liberalism (Guyon), and the presumed consequences of such cultural contextualities (Reich). Here, for the first time, Malinowski challenged Freudian motives for curricularisation, particularly latency, on the basis of non-Western data; this was frequently used by authors in the second half of the 20th century (preparatory surveying).

(5) Apart from incidental authors, systematic cross-cultural inventory efforts seemed to have started with 1945 work by Ford, four decades after the proposition of Freudian psychosexual theory. Since, there have been some numeric elaborations, utilised for especially psychodynamic theoremata, but hardly for descriptive or theoretical efforts. Particular neglect is noted for the issue of curricularisation of sexual behaviour trajectories.

 

 

 

Notes [up] [Contents]

[last updated]

 

 

[1] Morrison et al. (1980:p20)

[2] “Without hands, without hands”. Father, quoted by Spiro (1958 [1975:p221])

[3] Money, J. (1987) Introduction, in Sandfort, Th., Boys on their Contact with Men. Elmhurst, NY: Global Academic Publishers

[4] Janssen, D. F. (July, 2001) Paradoxia Sexualis: The Bio-Othering and Psychopathia Sexualis of the Child. Unpublished manuscript [bibliography]

[5] Moses (1922) Kostitution und Erlebnis in der Sexualpsychologie und -pathologie des Kindesalters, Zeitschr f Sexualwiss 8,10:305-19; Friedjung, J. K. (1931) Die Physiologie und Pathologie der kindlichen Sexualität, Monatschr f Kinderheilk 51:343-58; Gött, T. (1931) Physiologie und Pathologie der Sexualität, Monatschr f Kinderheilk 51:321-42

[6] Scott (1900) noticed 7 stages of sexual development, of which the first prepubertal four were Ten Lunar, infancy, childhood, and boy-/girlhood. Sexually, they were all “expressive of a passive existence, which, to all intents and purposes, is neuter” (p478). Well aware of climate and familial factors, he states that “[b]efore puberty, the boy is normally entirely free from all sexual thoughts or impressions” (p51); the girl is not different. Bell is able to categorise “five more or less well marked stages” in love development, the first two of whom range from ages 3 to 8, and 8 to 14. The paper however circumvents the issue of sexual instinct: hugging and kissing pleasure “is not specifically sexual except in some cases which I am inclined to consider as precocious”.

[7] Rohleder, H. (1921) Sexualpsychologie. Monographien zur Sexualwissenschaft 2. Hamburg: P. Hartung, p24-9

[8] Kohl, Au. (1911) Pubertät und Sexualität. Würzburg: Stuber, p22-31

[9] Basing on his sexological experiences and the comments of parents, a sign diagnostic of transition from stage I to II is the child starting to look at adult’s genitalia rather than other children’s. In phase II wise parents should consult the family practitioner to sexually educate the child at least as much to prevent him from masturbatory manipulations!

[10] For a brief outline of historical investigation, consider the following (full references are found elsewhere): Von Gagern (1952); Spitz (1952); Hare (1962); Duffy (1963); Jacobs (1963); Comfort (1967); MacDonald (1967); Ussel, van (1967/68); Szasz (1970); Cade (1973); Gilbert (1975); Neuman (1975); Pilgrim (1975); Buda (1976); Renshaw (1976); Bullough and Bullough (1977:ch.5); Greydanus & Geller (1980); Egelhardt (1981); Carter (1983); Hudson (1983); Chromy (1984); Money (1985); Stengers & Neck,van (1984); Elia (1987); Bloch (1989); Okada (1989); Hall (1992), Kay (1992); Lüthehaus (1992); Duche (1994); Schroth (1994); Braun (1995); Mortier et al. (1995); Richter (1996); Hunt (1998). Also Spree, R. (1986) Sozialisationsnormen in ärztlichen Ratgebern zur Säuglings- und Kleinkindpflege, in Martin, J. & Nitschke, Au. (Eds.) Zur Sozialgeschichte der Kindheit. München: Verlag K. Alber, p609-59, see p628-9, 641-3; Van Ussel, J. (1968) “Vuile manieren” en seksuele opvoeding, Persoon & Gemeenschap [Dutch] 21,3:137-47

[11] Lejeune, Ph. (1974) Le “dangereux supplement”: lecture d’un aveu de Rousseau, Annales: Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations [France] 29,4:1009-22

[12] Schoondermarck, J. Jr. (1902) Het (Auto- en Mutueel-) Onaneeren [etc.]. Amsterdam: Moransard [Dutch]

[13] Kett, J. F. (1971) Adolescence and Youth in Nineteenth-Century America, J Interdiscipl Hist 2,2:283-98. Reprinted in Rabb, Th. K. & Rotberg, R. R. (Eds., 1976) The Family in History. New York: Octagon Books, p95-110

[14] Schetsche, M. & Schmidt, R. (1996) Ein “dunkler Drang aus dem Leibe”: Deutungen kindlicher Onanie seit dem 18. Jahrhundert, Ztschr Sexualforsch 9,1:1-22

[15] Flandrin, J. (1976) Späte Heirat und Sexualleben, in Bloch, M. et al. (Eds.) Schrift und Materie der Geschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Cited by Schetsche and Schmidt (1996:p2), op.cit.

[16] Mortier, F. & Colen, W. (1995) Inner-scientific reconstructions in the discourse on masturbation (1960-1950), Paedagog Hist [Belgium] 30,3:817-47

[17] Rosenberg, Ch. E. (1973) Sexuality, Class and Role in 19th-Century America, Am Quart 25,2:131-53

[18] A comparable case is presented by Gillis (1996) who examined the early development of writings on infant and childhood thumb-sucking in American paediatric textbooks since 1878. He discusses the integration and consolidation of this suctus voluptibilis into common American paediatric coverage by observing that it found pathological and nosological anchors [p65] in its being classified as a “functional neurological disease”. The parent, nurse and non-paediatric physicians were incapacitated in their potential expertise, and the habit was pathologised by its association with orofacial deformity and sexualised [thus, pathologised] by its association with masturbation. The paediatrician was considered a coloniser rather than the self-declared explorer of the unknown terrain of infancy [p73] and paediatrics was identified as “an early intellectual example of contextual or relative “truth”[p64]”, by virtue of its anchoring the child’s behaviour in its adults consequences. See Gillis, J. (1996) Bad habits and pernicious results: thumb sucking and the discipline of late-nineteenth century paediatrics, Med Hist 40:55-73

[19] Zimmerman (1779) Warnung an Eltern, Erzieher und Kinderfreunde wegen der Selbstbefleckung, zumal bey ganz jungen Mädchen, Neues Mag f Ärzte 1,1:43-51

[20] Van Bambeke, C. (1859) Note sur certaines habitudes vicieuses chez les très-jeunes enfants, Bull Soc Méd Gand 25 :7-14

[21] Behrend, F. J. (1860) Über die Reizung der Geschlechtsteile, besonders über Onanie bei ganz kleinen Kindern, und die dagegen anzuwendenden Mittel, J Kinderkrankh 35:321-9

[22] Fleischmann, L. (1878) Ueber Onanie und Masturbation bei Säuglingen, Wien Med Presse 19:8-10, 46-8. See also Carter (1983:p190-1)

[23] Vering, A. M. (1841) Pastorale Geneeskunde. Almelo [Holland]: J. T. Sommer. Dutch transl. from the German, p164-84

[24] Rilliet, F. & Bartez, E. (1854) Traité Clinique et Practique des Maladies des Enfants. Vol. III. 2nd ed. Paris: Baillière, p417

[25] E.g., Bednař, A. (1856) Lehrbuch der Kinderkrankheiten. Vienna, p352

[26] Debay, Au. ([1961]) Hygiene et Physiologie du Marriage. 27th ed. Paris, p95-7

[27] Steiner, J. ([1873]) Compendium der Kinderziekten [etc]. Arnhem [Holland], Dutch transl. of German orig.

[28] Marro, A. (1899) Influence of the puberal development upon the moral charcter of children of both sexes, Am J Sociol 5,2:193-219, at p214

[29] Freud, S. (1905) Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie. Freud, S. (1912) Zur Einleitung der Onanie-Diskussion. In Die Onanie. Vierzehn Beiträge zu einer Diskussion der “Wiener Psychoanalytischen Vereinigung” (Diskussionen der Wiener psychoanalytischen Vereinigung, Heft 2). Wiesbaden; G.W., Bd. 8, p332-45

[30] Szasz, Th. (1970) The Manufacture of Madness. New York [etc.]: Harper & Row. 1972 Dutch transl.

[31] E.g., Premsela, B. (1947) Sexuologie in de Praktijk. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Strengholt, p212 [Dutch]

[32] Paradoxia Sexualis, op.cit.

[33] Carter, C. (1983) Infantile hysteria and infantile masturbation in late 19th century German language medical literature, Med Hist 27:186-96, at p196

[34] Mergen, B. (1975) The Discovery of Children’s Play, Am Quart 27,4:399-420

[35] Paradoxia Sexualis, op.cit.

[36] Schrenk-Notzing, A. von ([1895]) The Use of Hypnosis in Psychopathia Sexualis. 1956 Engl. Transl. from German orig. New York: Institute for Research in Hypnosis Publication Society

[37] Langfeldt, Th. (1981) Sexual development in children, in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (Eds.) Adult Sexual Interest in Children. New York: Academic Press, p99-120

[38] Beccadelli, A. (1908) Hermaphroditus. Leipzig [Privatdruck]. See also contributions by Forberg and Kind

[39] Bouchard, G. (1972) Le Village Immobile [etc.]. Paris, p325. “L’un et l’autre sexe est bien très enclin à l’amour, j’ai été étonné de voir cette passion se développer de bonne heure, au point que des garçons, même de sept ans à huit ans, ont commerce avec des filles de leur âge”. Quoted from Tessier (1776:p70)

[40] See Fuchs, R. ([ca. 1928]) Geschichte der Erotischen Kunst. Vol. 2. München: Albert Langen

[41] See Karwath, C. von (1908) Der Erotik in der Kunst. Vienna: Stern

[42] De la Bretonne, R. (1794-7) M. Nicolas ou le Coeur Humain Dévoilé. 1985 Dutch transl., De Liefdesavonturen van Mons. Nicolas […]. See p7-39

[43] Ellis, H. (1936) Studies in the Psychology of Sex. New York: Random House. 2 vols.

[44] Ellis, H. (1901) The development of the sexual instinct, Alienist & Neurologist 22,3:500-21

[45] Bloch, op.cit.

[46] Ztschr Ethnol 4 (1896):[p364]

[47] Ztschr Ethnol 1 (1889):[p16]

[48] Groos is known because of Freud’s reference in 1905. See Groos, K. (1896) Die Spiele der Thiere. Jena: G. Fischer; (1899) Die Spiele der Menschen. Jena: G. Fischer, especially p326-33

[49] Chaimberlain, A. F. (1896) The Child and Childhood in Folk-Thought. New York [etc.]: Macmillan

[50] Newell, W. W. (1883) Games and Songs of American Children. New York: Harper, p39-62

[51] Gomme, A. B. (1894-8) The International Games of England, Scotland and Ireland [etc.]. 2 Vols. London: David Nutt

[52] More plays by Gomme include “Here comes Three Dukes a-Riding”, and “Poor Mary sits a-Weeping” (cf. Chaimberlain, p270-1).

[53] Ref. Bell (1902:p339). Babcock, W. H. (1888) Games of Washington children, Am Anthropol 1:243-84. Reprinted in Sutton-Smith, B. (Ed.) A Children’s Games Anthology. New York: Arno Press. See also Lippincott’s Magazine, March and September, 1886

[54] Short references to “love games” in Schwartzman, H. B. (1976) The Anthropological Study of Children’s Play, Ann Rev Anthropol 5:289-328, at p293; Mergen, B. (1975) The Discovery of Children’s Play, Am Quart 27,4:399-420, at p401

[55] Bell, S. (1902) A preliminary study of the emotion of love between the sexes, Am J Psychol 13,3:325-54. Another interesting article in this respect is Just (1897) Die Liebe im Kindesalter, Prax Erziehungskunde 11, and Speyer, R. (1904) Die Liebe bei den Kindern, Die Kinderfehler 9:21-5. See also Pfister, O. (1922) Die Liebe des Kindes und ihre Fehlentwicklungen: Ein Buch für Eltern und Berufserzieher. Bern: Bircher; Pfister, O. (1925) Die Liebe vor der Ehe und Ihre Fehlentwicklungen. Bern:, p204-7; Wolffheim, N. (1958) Wie Kinder wirklich sind: Erlebtes aus einem Kindergarten, Prax Kinderpsychol & Kinderpsychia 7:16-23; Wolffheim, N. (1966) Kinderlieben, in Psychoanalyse im Kindergarten. München [etc.]: G. Biermann, p124-33. Reprinted in Kentler, H. (Ed.) Texte zur Sozio-Sexualität. [Opladen]: Leske, p80-6

[56] “Of course there is much promiscuous catching, and the game [chasing and clutching] is satisfying other instincts than of love, for instance the instinct of pursuing and catching […]” (p341).

[57] Adler, A. (1911) Erotische Kinderspiele, Anthropophyteia 8:256-8. They include Father-and-Mother, “Pfänderspielen”, Menagerie-Spiel, Kühemelken (Cow Milking), Robinson-Spiel, Feuerwehr-Spiel (Fire-Figher), Kot- und Urinspiele, and Wett-Spiele (Contest; “Wer höher urinieren, schneller masturbieren kann”).

[58] Opie, I. & Opie, P. (1959 [1967]) The Lore & Language of Schoolchildren. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. 1967 paperback, p328-9

[59] Moll, A. (1897-8) Untersuchungen über die Libido Sexualis. Berlin: Fischer; Moll, A. (1908) Das Sexualleben des Kindes. Leipzig: Vogel

[60] More than one hundred articles of Money discuss this point.

[61] Money, J., Cawte, J. E., Bianchi, G. N. & Nurcombe, B. (1970) Sex training and traditions in Arnhem Land, Br J Med Psychol 47:383-99

[62] Hartley, R. E. & Goldenson, R. M. (1957) The Complete Book of Children’s Play. New York: Th. Y. Crowell. Comp.

[63] Bloch, I. (1902) Beiträge zur Ätiologie der Psychopathia Sexualis. Vol. II. Dresden: Dohrn

[64] Crawley, A. E. (1929) Studies of Savages and Sex. London: Methuen & Co.

[65] Guyon, R. (1929) La Légitimé des Actes Sexuels. Saint-Denis: Dardaillon, see p39-86. He noted that “[s]elon beaucoup de voyageurs, dans les pays chauds, à Madagascar, sur les rives de la Plata, en Afrique, etc…, les relations sexuelles commencent entre enfants à l’âge de 6 à 7 ans”.

[66] Ploß, H. H. & Bartels, M. ([1913]) Das Weib in der Natur- und Völkerkunde, Vol. 1. 10th rev. ed. Leipzig: Th. Grieben. Dutch transl., 1918

[67] Ploß, H. H. ([1912]) Das Kind in Brauch und Sitte der Völker, Vol. 2. 3rd rev. ed. by Ph. B. Renz. Leipzig: Th. Grieben

[68] Karsch-Haack, F. (1911) Das Gleichgeschlechtliche Leben der Naturvölker. München: E. Reinhardt

[69] Buch, M. (1882) Die Wötjaken, eine Ethnologische Studie. Stuttgart: Helsingfors

[70] Hammond, W. N. (1888) Sexual Impotence. 1889 German transl., Sexueller Impotenz beim Männlichen und Weiblichen Geschlechtes. Berlin, p65

[71] Forel, Au. ([1904-1923]) Die Sexuelle Frage. München: Reinhardt. Cf. Bauer, B. A. (1923) Wie bist du, Weib? Betrachtungen über Körper, Seele, Sexualleben und Erotik des Weibes. Mit einem Anhange: Die Prostitution. Vienna, Leipzig , München: Rikola

[72] Das Kind, 3rd rev. ed., 1912. Vol. II, p519-59. In Femina Libido Sexualis, edited and arranged in 1965, the issue of “infantile sexuality” (p256-9) follows, as the phrase suggests, Freudian theory, but the book does not address cross-cultural perspectives.

[73] Buschan, G. ([1921]), in Moll, A. (Ed.) Handbuch der Sexualwissenschaften. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Vogel; Buschan, G. (1927) Im Anfang War das Weib. Vol. II. Dresden: Petzschke & Gretschel

[74] Reitzenstein, F. E. von (1931) Das Weib bei den Naturvölkern. 2nd enlarged ed. Berlin : Neufeld & Henius

[75] Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E. & Gebhard, P. H. (1953) Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: Saunders

[76] Erikson, E. ([1962]) Childhood and Society. 2nd, rev. & enl. ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

[77] Tessmann, G. (1911) Die Kinderspiele der Pangwe, Bässler-Archiv 2:250-80

[78] Tessmann, G. (1913) Die Pangwe: Völkerkundliche Monographie eines West Afrikanischen Negerstammes. Berlin: E Wasmuth

[79] Tessmann, G. (1921) Die Homosexualität bei den Negern Kameruns, Jahrb f Sex Zwischenst 21:121-38. Reprinted and translated by Bradley Rose, in Murray, S. O. & Roscoe, W. (Eds., 1998) Boy-Wives and Female Husbands. Studies on African Homosexualities. New York: St. Martin’s Press, p149-61. See also ibid., p141-2

[80] Tessmann, G. (1934a) Die Bafia und die Kultur der Mittelkamerun-Bantu. Stuttgart: Strecker & Schröder

[81] Tessmann, G. (1928) Die Mbaka-Limba, Mbum und Lakka, Zeitschr Ethnol 60,4:305-52

[82] Tessmann, G. (1934b/1937) Die Baja: Ein Negerstamm im Mittleren Sudan: Materielle und Seelische Kultur. Stuttgart: Strecker & Schröder. 2 vols.

[83] An abbreviated version of preparatory review efforts is included as Appendix I.

[84] See Appendix III

[85] For a Dutch response to Guyon, see Emde-Boas, C. van (1948) The child and sexual activity [letter], Int J Sexol 2,2:126-8 / Emde-Boas, C. van (1957) De opvattingen omtrent kinderlijke seksualiteit van dr. R. Guyon, Inzichten [Holland] 1:222-6

[86] Levine , A. J. (1994) ‘Errorgenous’ Zones? Kinsey’s Sexual Ideology, The World & I Online, 9, p426

[87] O’Carroll, T. (1982) Paedophilia, The Radical Case. Boston: Alyson Publications

[88] Peterson, B. (1992) The sexual child, in “Trobriands” Collective of Authors (Ed.) Crime Without Victims. Amsterdam: Global Academic Publ. [Translated by E. Brongersma], p53-67

[89] The Dutch Periodical Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987-1995), as well as the rare New York two-issue International Journal of Greek Love (1965-6) contained various ethnographic studies under the common denominator of “Greek love” / “paedophilia”; other journals which have done so include the Journal of Homosexuality.

About James V. Kohl 1308 Articles
James Vaughn Kohl was the first to accurately conceptualize human pheromones, and began presenting his findings to the scientific community in 1992. He continues to present to, and publish for, diverse scientific and lay audiences, while constantly monitoring the scientific presses for new information that is relevant to the development of his initial and ongoing conceptualization of human pheromones. Recently, Kohl integrated scientific evidence that pinpoints the evolved neurophysiological mechanism that links olfactory/pheromonal input to genes in hormone-secreting cells of tissue in a specific area of the brain that is primarily involved in the sensory integration of olfactory and visual input, and in the development of human sexual preferences. His award-winning 2007 article/book chapter on multisensory integration: The Mind’s Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences followed an award winning 2001 publication: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology, which was coauthored by disinguished researchers from Vienna. Rarely do researchers win awards in multiple disciplines, but Kohl’s 2001 award was for neuroscience, and his 2007 “Reiss Theory” award was for social science. Kohl has worked as a medical laboratory scientist since 1974, and he has devoted more than twenty-five years to researching the relationship between the sense of smell and the development of human sexual preferences. Unlike many researchers who work with non-human subjects, medical laboratory scientists use the latest technology from many scientific disciplines to perform a variety of specialized diagnostic medical testing on people. James V. Kohl is certified with: * American Society for Clinical Pathology * American Medical Technologists James V. Kohl is a member of: * Society for Neuroscience * Society for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology * Association for Chemoreception Sciences * Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality * International Society for Human Ethology * American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science * Mensa, the international high IQ society