<< Significance of Marital Coitus >>

In nearly all moral codes, the world round, coitus between wedded spouses is accepted even though all other types of sexual activity may be condemned. In most instances, coitus is considered not only a privilege but an obligation which is imposed on both parties in the marriage.

For most females and males, coitus in marriage provides, in the course of their lives, a larger proportion of their total sexual outlet than any other single type of activity. Moreover, marital coitus is socially the most important of all sexual activities, because of its significance in the origin and maintenance of the home.

Throughout most human groups, everywhere in the world, the home has been recognized as the basic unit of the social organization. In only a few instances have there been serious attempts to abandon the family organization, and to substitute some state-centered institution which would abolish the long-time associations of adults and their offspring. Such an abandonment of the family was attempted in ancient Sparta, and in the communal groups such as the Brook Farm Colony, the New Harmony Colony, the Oneida Colony, and the various other experimental societies which developed in the United States a century or more ago. Something of the sort has been attempted more recently in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China. None of these schemes, however, has provided satisfactory substitutes for the home, and most of them have been short-lived. History confirms the importance of the family, even though it does not justify some of the other customs which are a part of our culture.

Society is interested in maintaining the family as a way for men and women to live together in partnerships that may make for more effective functioning than solitary living may allow. Society is interested in maintaining the family as a means of providing homes for children that result from coitus; and in Jewish and many Christian philosophies, this is made a prime end of marriage. Society is also interested in maintaining families as a means of providing a regular sexual outlet for adults, and as a means of controlling promiscuous sexual activity.

Marital coitus is accepted primarily because it may lead to procreation; and in both Jewish and Catholic codes, and in some others elsewhere in the world, this is taken to be the prime function of marriage and of coitus in marriage.
For a summary statement on the Jewish concept of procreation as the only legitimate function of coitus, see: Epstein 1948:18. Cohen 1949:164. The Catholic interpretation recognizes procreation as the primary end of coitus in marriage, but also recognizes its function in allaying concupiscence, in the yielding of his right to a partner, in promoting mutual love, and in contributing to the health of the body. See: Davis 1946(4) :253.

But as we have already noted, there is, today, an increasing recognition of the fact that sexual relationships in marriage may also serve a moral function when they contribute to the emotional well-being of the spouses, and for these several reasons nearly all religions insist that marriage be solemnized in a religious ceremony over which a priest presides. Thus it becomes a religious covenant or sacrament among most peoples, in most parts of the world. In our own culture, the substitution of a civil ceremony and the civil control of marriage is a relatively recent development.

Some restrictions, however, may be placed by religious and legal codes on an individual's right to marry and on his or her right to have coitus in marriage. Various groups, both within ancient and modem times, have restricted the right of their priests to marry. Not infrequently complete sexual abstinence is demanded of those taking religious orders, and in not a few groups religious castrations have been performed. The Russian Skopts and certain of the Coptics of Egypt and Ethiopia consider self-castration a Christian virtue. There have been several religious sects, including not only the Skopts of Russia but such American pioneer groups as those who built the New Harmony Colony, which forbid coitus to all of their members. Even the sacred duty to procreate may, in such religious codes, be transcended by these higher fidelities.
For a discussion of the restrictions imposed on marital coitus by primitives, see: Ford 1945:12-13, 28-29. Ford and Beach 1951:75-77, 211-220. The Jewish code forbids coitus for seven days following the cessation of the menstrual flow and sometimes for a short period before. For this and other Jewish restrictions, see: Leviticus 18:19; 20:18. Talmud, Yebamoth:418-419; Kethuboth 369, 374-375. Ganzfried 1927(4):16, 21-30. The Mohammedan restriction is limited to the period of menstrual flow, and this must be followed by a cleansing; see: Koran, pt.2,ch.2:222. For a recent Catholic interpretation, see Davis 1946(4):255 (coitus during menstruation is not unlawful if it can be done with mutual consent and without grave harm). Note also in the Catholic code, Davis 1946(4):258-259 (Immoderate requesting is unlawful. Request is immoderate if it would harm health. After the first months of a marriage it is asked moderately if in the sufficiently strong it is sought twice in seven days on different nights. But temperance in sexual matters is relative; therefore with mutual consent and without danger to health (a thing that will have to be established by experience, especially if fatigue or weakness should follow), to have intercourse almost every night will not be immoderate).

That many religious groups still find an immorality in marital coitus is also evidenced by the continued insistence that all persons are “conceived in wickedness and sin,” and by the restrictions which are placed on conjugal relationships under certain conditions. At various times in European and American history, for instance, coitus has been forbidden during Lent or the forty days preceding Easter, the forty days preceding Christmas, three days before taking communion, on Sunday, on the two fast days of the week (Wednesday and Friday), and (particularly in Jewish and Mohammedan codes) during the time of menstruation, during a period of a week before and sometimes after menstruation, during certain phases of the moon, sometimes at seed-planting and harvesting times, and from the time of the discovery of a pregnancy until forty days after parturition. In some codes the restrictions have been such that coitus was not acceptable for more than a single week out of each lunar month. The Jewish and Mohammedan codes place severe restrictions on the activities of the male and female who have engaged in any sort of coitus, and forbid their entrance into any religious service until they have been ‘‘cleansed’' by a suitable ceremony. At one time in New England coitus on Sunday was considered a sin, and a child born on Sunday might have been refused baptism because of the erroneous belief that its birth on that day proved that it had been conceived on Sunday (the New England practice relating to children born on Sunday is cited in May 1931:254).

On the other hand there have been many religious groups which have extolled the beauty and sacred nature of all sexual activity, and have incorporated sexual symbolism and sexual ceremonies into their worship. The ancient Sanskrit love books were sacred literature. The temple worship in ancient Athens and in certain Roman and Hindu cults, and religious ceremonies among primitive groups in many parts of the world, recognized the morality of both marital and non-marital sexual activities.

Both Hebrew and Christian codes have emphasized the obligation of the wife, and to some lesser degree the obligation of the husband, to engage in coitus with the lawfully wedded spouse. Among the impediments which might deny an individual the right to marry, and which in some instances have allowed the dissolution of a marriage which had already been contracted, the physical inability to engage in coitus, or the refusal to engage in coitus after marriage, was, and still is in some codes, of outstanding importance. In medieval and Renaissance Europe, the one complaint which offered the wife the best promise of a legal annulment of a marriage, was evidence that her husband had been physically incapable of performing coitus ever since the marriage ceremony.

In keeping with the more ancient concept of the wife as property acquired by the husband in a lawful transaction, the older emphasis was placed on her obligation to accept coitus as and when her husband desired it; but gradually, through the centuries, the wife came to share the husband’s privilege of securing ecclesiastic or legal redress when her husband refused to cohabit with her. In Anglo-American law, such a refusal on the part of either spouse has sometimes been interpreted as desertion or cruelty, and consequently in many states as grounds for a divorce. A spouse’s refusal to have coitus in marriage is still a matter for confession in the Catholic code.
    In law, the wife's right to marital coitus was first recognized in Orme v. Orme 1824:2 Add. 382. Only recently, and contrary to the common law doctrine, she has been given money damages for the loss of her husband's “consortium.” See Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. 1950:183 F.(2d)811. The codes of Calif., N.D., and S.D. provide that “persistent refusal to have reasonable matrimonial intercourse as husband and wife when health or physical condition does not make such refusal reasonably necessary . . . is desertion.” There are decisions in some ten states (Ark., Colo., Ga., Ky., Md., Miss., N. J., Ore., Va., and W. Va.), which have considered refusal to have intercourse to constitute sufficient or contributory bases for establishing desertion; but there are contrary decisions in a greater number of states. North Carolina formerly made twelve months' persistent refusal of conjugal intercourse sufficient grounds for divorce. A very few states treat such refusal as cruelty, and as a basis for divorce on those grounds; see: Campbell v. Campbell 1907:112 N.W. (Mich.) 481. Hudgins v. Hudgins 1943:23 S.E.2d (Va.)774. Fruehaut v. Fruehaut 1946:170 P.2d (Wash.)309. Two states (N. H. and Ky.) specifically provide that joining a religious organization which holds marital intercourse to be unlawful is grounds for divorce, and in Ohio it is a criminal offense to induce a married person to join such a religious organization.
    The obligation of both spouses to engage in coitus is set forth in the Catholic code; see: Arregui 1927:531-532 (each spouse bound to render marital dues, except rarely; a trivial inconvenience does not excuse from rendering it; to deny marital dues is a trivial sin if denied only rarely, and not a grave sin if denied at one time or another to one seeking often). Davis 1946(4):257-258. Kelly 1951:79-81, 94. For the Jewish code, see: Ganzfried 1927(4):15-16 (the wife cannot be deprived of her rights to coitus except by her consent, but the male cannot consort with his wife unless it be with her consent, and it is forbidden to force her).

The formerly subordinate position of the wife in a marriage is reflected in the traditional attitude of English and American law which rules that she, in consenting to marry, has thereby given her irrevocable consent to accept coitus under any conditions from her husband, even though he may use extreme force or violence to achieve his ends. Even under present-day American penal codes, a husband’s coitus with his wife can never be interpreted as rape, no matter how much the coitus may be against her wishes and no matter how much force he may use; but in nearly every state a husband can be prosecuted for assault and battery if he uses undue force, and he may be penalized indirectly, not by criminal action, but by having such forceful relations considered grounds for a divorce.
The general tenor of the legal opinions indicates that the husband has a duty of forbearance just as the wife has a duty of submission; see: Himes v. Himes 1921:185 N.W. (Ia.)91. Hockman v. Hockman 1945:41 A.2d (Md.)510. American Law Reports 1922(18):1063.

The frequencies of coitus have been the subject of court review at various times, including recent divorce cases in American courts in which the judges were called upon to consider the reasonableness of the coital frequencies which the husband had demanded. Even near daily coitus has been ruled by the bench to be unreasonable and cruel and sufficient grounds for securing a divorce. This is another example of the law’s failure to allow for the fact that such high rates of coitus are maintained by a not inconsiderable portion of the population.
For legal decisions involving the legitimate frequencies of coitus, see: Harnish v. Harnish 1946:60 N.Y.S.2d 153 (unreasonable demands, particularly if the wife is older, are grounds for legal separation). Rudnick v. Rudnick 1934:192 N.E. (Mass.)501 (ungovernable lust or unreasonable exercise of marital rights is cruelty). But see: Cappazzoli v. Cappazzoli 1949:64 A.2d (N. J.)440 where the wife complained of continuous, unreasonable demands for intercourse without abatement or variation for twenty years as follows: “He abused me with sexual intercourse at all times. . . . If I refused he would bribe me with money”; but the court denied her a divorce because there was no showing of danger to her health. In Dittrick v. Brown County 1943:9 N.W.(2d) 510 the Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the commitment as a sexual psychopath of a 42-year-old father of six who “was mentally bright, capable, and a good worker,” because of his uncontrollable craving for sexual intercourse with his wife, amounting in the year before his commitment to approximately 3 or 4 times a week!

It is not often realized that the coital techniques which are employed in marriage may be subject to the same legal restrictions which are placed on those techniques when they occur between persons who are not wedded spouses. Coital positions were regulated by older codes, and the early Catholic codes considered the use of any except the prone position with the male above as a matter for confession and, in the days when the church’s authority was backed by the civil administration, as a matter for punishment. Jewish codes, on the other hand, did not condemn the use of a variety of coital positions.
A Jewish rule regarding appropriate coital positions in marriage is found in: Ganzfried 1927(4):14 (“He should have intercourse in the most possible modest manner”; female above considered unchaste, improper). For more current Catholic interpretations, see: Arregui 1927:531 (unnatural position does not exceed a venial sin, and from a just cause is free from all fault). Davis 1946(4):254 (wife on back most suitable, but other positions, if conception is not hindered, are permitted). But see also Ellis 1936(11,3):555-556 (states that Aquinas took a serious view of deviations, while Sanchez was more indulgent, but that the Christian theologians were generally opposed to a position with the female above).

In most states the sodomy acts are so worded that they would apply to mouth-genital contacts and to anal coitus between married spouses, as well as to both heterosexual and homosexual relations outside of marriage. Surprisingly few persons including very few attorneys are aware that the sodomy acts can be extended to married partners. The penalties for such acts may in some jurisdictions be exceeded only by the penalties for murder, kidnapping, and rape. There are court statements on the applicability of these sodomy statutes, and one case even goes so far as to uphold the conviction of a man for soliciting his wife to commit sodomy. We have cases of persons who were convicted because one of the spouses objected, or because some other person became aware that oral or anal play had been included in the marital activities. There are, however, few prosecutions under these laws, but as long as they remain on the books, they are subject to capricious enforcement and become tools for blackmailers. In those states where the definition of cruelty as one of the grounds for divorce includes "personal indignities’" or "mental cruelty,” divorce cases involving either the husband’s or the wife’s desires or demands for the use of oral techniques are not infrequent.
For the application of the criminal law on sodomy to similar activities between married spouses, see, for instance: Regina v. Jellyman 1838:8 Carr and Payne 604 (jury so charged but verdict not guilty). Smith v. State 1934:234 S.W. (Ark.)32 (upheld conviction on charge of carnally knowing and abusing his wife, by “disregarding the laws of nature’'). Commonwealth v. Schiff 1944: 29 North. Co. Rep. (Pa.)283 (conviction on counts of sodomy, solicitation to commit sodomy, and assault and battery). Commonwealth v. Wiesner 1945:21 Leh. LJ. (Pa.)284 (forced anal intercourse, new trial granted because wife’s testimony improbable). For court dicta to the same effect see: Honselman v. People 1897:48 N.E. (111.)304. State v. Nelson 1937:271 N.W. (Minn.)114. For sodomy in divorce proceedings see: Ploscowe 1951:203. Click V. Click 1951:84 A.2d (Pa.)248 (wife asked for the relations). Kranch V. Kranch 1951:84 A.2d (Pa.)230 (wife in same appellate court, same day as above). For tables showing the criminal penalties involved see: Sherwin 1949(1):82. Bensing 1951:63. The statement in Sherwin 1950:24, that “cun-nilingual activity . . . even when practiced by married couples, is still a felony in all forty-eight states,” is not exactly correct. In Kentucky and South Carolina the law does not apply to any mouth-genital contact in marriage, and in New York it is a misdemeanor only. Oral contact with the female genitalia, because it does not involve any penetration by the male organ, is not an offense in Illinois, Wisconsin, Mississippi, and Ohio. The seven states above have a combined population of over 40 million. It is also possible that higher courts in still other states would not, if presented with the problem, consider such activity within marriage as ‘‘indecent, lascivious, or unnatural,” even though it is considered to be so when it occurs between persons not married.

Some persons fear that the family as an institution is in imminent danger in our present-day American social organization. They are disturbed over the increasing divorce rate. They see the traditional relation between the sexes upset by the female’s growing emancipation from her former role in the home, and by the increasing importance of her position in the social organization outside of the home. They see organized social events, moving pictures, and the automobile taking the family away from the fireside circle for its recreational and intellectual development. They feel that the integrity of the family organization is threatened by the younger generation s rebellion against parental controls.

On the other hand, the proportion of married persons in the total population is higher than ever before in American history, there is a higher proportion who live in separate housing units, and there are more persons who own their own homes. Many persons feel that some of these developments are contributing to a type of family which is better than the patriarchal, autocratically controlled organization which our grandparents knew.

The primate family, roaming the wild, is dominated by the physical brawn of its male head, and there is a minimum of anything which resembles a partnership between the adults in such an organization. The primate offspring depend upon their mother for most of the care and protection which they receive. Until a half century ago, many human families in Europe and in this country were as nearly male-dominated as the primate family is in the wild. But with the emergence of the female as a significant force in the political, industrial, and intellectual life of our Western culture, marriage is increasingly becoming a partnership in which the duties, responsibilities, and privileges are more equally shared by or divided between the two spouses. Similarly, an increased understanding of human psychology, with its emphasis upon the importance of the early years in the life of an individual, has made the child a partner in the home, as it rarely was in Europe or America a century ago.

As a result of this awakened interest in more human and more substantial family partnerships, there is developing in this country, as well as in some other parts of the world, an increasing interest in understanding some of the factors which contribute to the effectiveness of a home, and an increasing emphasis on training modern youth and adults to be more effective marital partners. It is in these terms that the significance of sex education, of pre-marital sexual outlets, of non-marital sexual activities for adults, and of the techniques and frequencies of marital coitus are being evaluated today.
 
Summary and Comparisons of Female and Male
Marital Coitus
  In FemaleIn Male
Historical Origins
Family a basic unit in all cultures    
Family formerly dominated by male,
now becoming more of a partnership		    
Relation to Age
Accumulative incidence

Experience

±100%

±100%

-- to orgasm, first year of marr.

75%

±100%

-- to orgasm, 20th year of marr.

90%

±100%

Active incidence

Experience

Before age 30

99%

±100%

By age 50

93%

97%

By age 60

80%

94%

Experience to orgasm

Age 16-20

71%

±100%

Age 31-40

90%

±100%

Age 51-55

78%

±100%

Frequency (active median) per week

By age 20

2.8

2.6

By age 40

1.5

1.6

By age 60

0.6

0.6

With freq. of 7 or more per week

By age 20

14%

16%

By age 40

3%

4%

Most interest in coitus in:

Later marr.

Early marr.

Percentage of total outlet

Age 16-20

84%

81%

Age 21-25

89%

81%

Age 60

72%

±78%

Relation to Educational Level

Active incidence

Experience

No relation

No relation

Experience to orgasm

Higher in better educ.

No relation

Frequency

---

Little or no relation

Little or no relation

Percentage of total outlet

Grade and high school groups

Decrease after age 25

Steady increase

College and graduate groups

Marked decrease after 25

Steady decrease

Relation to Parental Occupational Class

---

Little or none

Little or none

Relation to Decade of Birth

Active incidence

Experience

No relation

No relation

Orgasm

Material increase after 1900

No relation

Frequency

Lower in younger generations

?

Percentage of total outlet

Steady increase

Relation to Age at Onset of Adolescence

 

Little or none

?

Relation to Religious Background

Incidence

No relation

No relation

Frequency

No relation

Less devout 20-30% higher

Percent of total outlet higher in devout

Yes

Yes

Techniques

Foreplay

Manual techniques most common

Yes

Yes

Oral techniques more accepted
by younger generations

Yes

Yes

Time involved in foreplay

3 minutes or less

11%

Unpublished
calculations
give essentially
same percents

4-10 minutes

36%

11-20 minutes

31%

Over 20 minutes

22%

Coital positions

Male above, commonest

Yes

Yes

Female above, frequently

45%

Vary with
social level

Side by side, frequently

31%

Other positions less frequent

Yes

Yes

More variation in younger generation

Yes

Yes

Nudity

Increase in coitus,
in successive generations

67 to 92%

Increase in sleeping,
in successive generations

37 to 59%

Moral and Legal Aspects

Marital coitus
a moral and legal obligation

Yes, always

Yes, more recently

Marital coitus often restricted
by religious and secular injunctions

Yes

Yes

Techniques and other aspects
may be restricted by law

Yes

Yes

Occurrence of Orgasm in Coitus

Percentage (aver.) of copulations
leading to orgasm

70-77%

±100%

Multiple orgasm

Younger ages

±14%

8-15%

Older ages

±14%

2-3%

Persistent failure of female to reach
orgasm may damage marriage

Yes

Yes

Orgasm positively correlated with:

Intrinsic physiologic capacity

Marked

Age

Some

Educational level

Some

Parental occupational class

Some

Decade of birth

Marked

Age at marriage

Some

Length of marriage

Marked

Pre-marital experience in orgasm

Marked

Pre-marital coitus to orgasm

Marked

Pre-marital petting to orgasm

Marked

Pre-marital masturbation to orgasm

Marked

Orgasm not correlated with:
Age at onset of adolescence    
Religious background    
Techniques of foreplay and coitus    


>>