Multiple Orgasm in the Human Male

<< Significance of Animal Contacts >>

Universally, human males have shown a considerable interest in unusual, rare, and sometimes fantastically impossible types of sexual activity. In consequence there is a great deal more discussion and a more extensive literature about such things as incest, transvestism, necrophilia, extreme forms of fetishism, sado-masochism, and animal contacts than the actual occurrence of any of these phenomena would justify.

From the earliest recorded history, and from the still more ancient archives of folklore and mythology, there are man-made tales of sexual relations between the human female and no end of other species of animals. The mythology of primitive, pre-literate peoples in every part of the world has included such tales.
Folk tales and myths of human females in contact with male animals are summarized in: Dubois-Desaulle 1933:31-47. Ford 1945:31. Leach and Fried 1949(1):61.

Classic Greek and Roman mythology had accounts of lovers appearing as asses, Zeus appearing as a swan, females having sexual relations with bears, apes, bulls, goats, horses, ponies, wolves, snakes, crocodiles, and still lower vertebrates. The literary and artistic efforts of more recent centuries have never abandoned these themes; erotic literature and drawings, including some of the world’s great art, have repeatedly come back to the same idea.
As examples of the persistence of this theme into more modern life, note the hundreds of representations of “Leda and the Swan,” the magazine cartoons showing a female abducted by an ape, the still-current “Prince Charming'' nursery tale, and motion pictures of gorillas interested in human females.

Much of this interest in rare or non-existent forms of sexual performance may represent the male's wishful thinking, a projection of his own desire to engage in a variety of sexual activities, or his erotic response to the idea that other persons, especially females, may be involved in such activities. This stems from the male’s capacity to be aroused erotically by a variety of psychosexual stimuli. Females, because of their lesser dependence on psychologic stimulation, are less inclined to be interested in activities which lie beyond the immediately available techniques, and rarely, either in their conversation, in their written literature, or in their art, deal with fantastic or impossible sorts of sexual activity. Human males, and not the females themselves, are the ones who imagine that females are frequently involved in sexual contacts with animals of other species. In fact, human males may be responsible for initiating some of the animal contacts and especially the exhibitionistic contacts in which some females (particularly prostitutes) engage.
The observation of exhibitions of coitus between prostitutes and animals is frequently recorded in our male histories; they are also mentioned in: Kisch 1907:201. Bloch 1908:644, 646. Kraftt-Ebing 1922:562. Rohleder 1925:370. Kelly 1930:184-185. Rbbinson 1936:46. Negri 1949:217. London and Caprio 1950:21-22.

Considerable confusion has been introduced into our thinking by this failure to distinguish between sexual activities that are frequent and a fundamental part of the pattern of behavior, and sexual activities which are rare and of significance only to a limited number of persons. Psychologic and psychiatric texts are as likely to give as much space to overt sado-masochistic or necrophilic activity as they give to homosexual and mouth-genital activities, but the last two are widespread and significant parts of the lives of many females and males, while many of the other types of behavior are in actuality rare.

As we have already seen, males may be more often involved than females in a variety of non-coital sexual activities. Sexual contacts between the human male and animals of other species are not rare in the rural segments of our American population, and probably not infrequent in other parts of the world. Some 17 per cent of the farm boys in our sample had had some sexual contact with farm animals to the point of orgasm, while half or more of the boys from certain rural areas of the United States had had such experience. It will be profitable to try to analyze the factors which account for the lesser frequencies of animal contacts among the females in the present sample.

There is no sufficient explanation, either in biologic or psychologic science, for the confinement of sexual activity to contacts between females and males of the same species. We have no sufficient knowledge to explain why an insect of one species should not mate or attempt to mate with many other species, why different species of birds do not indiscriminately interbreed, or why any species of mammal should confine its sexual activity as often as it does. There are obvious anatomic problems which prevent the indiscriminate, interspecific mating of some forms, but no known anatomic or psychologic factors which would prevent most of the more closely related species from trying to make inter-specific matings.
But records of sexual activity attempted between animals of gross morphologic disparity are in: Karsch 1900:129 (female eland with ostrich). Féré 1904:79-80 (male dog with chicken). Hamilton 1914:308 (male monkey with snake). Zell 1921(1):238 (stallion vdth human). Bingham 1928:71-72 (female chimpanzee with cat). Williams 1943:445 (cow with human).

Evidence is beginning to accumulate that individuals of quite unrelated species do make inter-specific contacts more often than biologists have heretofore allowed. The intensive study of the movements of individual birds, which bird-banding techniques have made possible, has shown that there is a great deal more inter-specific mating among birds than we have previously realized. More intensive taxonomic and genetic work in the field has shown the existence of a large number of inter-specific hybrids, and these provide evidence that inter-specific mating occurred at some time or other and, more than that, that such matings were viable and gave rise to fertile offspring. The successful matings must represent only a small proportion of the inter-specific contacts which are actually attempted or made.

It is not a problem of explaining why individuals of different species should be attracted to each other sexually. The real problem lies in explaining why individuals do not regularly make contacts with species other than their own. In actuality, it is probable that the human animal makes inter-specific sexual contacts less often than some of the other species of mammals, primarily because he has no close relative among the other mammals, and secondarily because of the considerable significance which psychologic stimuli have in limiting his sexual activity.

A considerable portion of the animal activity of the farm boy is the product of his erotic arousal upon contemplating the coitus that occurs among the animals themselves, and of his constant association with animals that he knows have been recently involved in sexual activity. Such sympathetic emotional responses are natural enough and not fundamentally different from those which would be expected if the boy were to observe coitus among human subjects. His attempt to replace the male animal in such relations is the obvious outcome of an identification of his own capacities with those of the animal he has observed. His initial attempts are sometimes inspired by a quite understandable curiosity to try what he has discovered to be a possible sort of activity. Whatever moral issues may be involved, and however long-standing the social condemnation of animal contacts may have been throughout the history of Western European civilizations, the easy dismissal of such behavior by characterizing it as abnormal shows little capacity for making objective analyses of the basic psychology that is involved.

In a considerable number of instances the farm boy’s initiation into animal contacts is inspired by his knowledge of similar activity among his companions. This is particularly true in Western areas where adults as well as adolescents are not infrequently engaged in animal intercourse, and where there may be frequent conversation in the community about such activities. It is not unusual in some rural areas to find individuals who openly admit that such contacts have provided them with some erotic satisfaction.

To a considerable extent contacts with animals are substitutes for heterosexual relations with human females. In rural areas where both social and sexual relations with girls may be more or less limited, the boy is often left alone or with his brothers, his male cousins, or the adult males who are working on the farm. We share the general impression, although we have no significant data to establish it, that rural communities are on the whole more traditional in their moral condemnation of premarital sexual relations, and the boy on the farm is often strictly forbidden to associate with girls. This cannot help but encourage substitutional behavior of the sort which the animals may afford. There are histories of extremely religious males who, even in their twenties and in later years, continue to derive practically the whole of their outlet from animals because of their conviction that heterosexual coitus with a human female is morally unacceptable.

In not a few cases the animal contacts become homosexual activities. Masturbating the male animal, whether it is a dog, horse, bull, or some other species, may provide considerable erotic excitement for the boy or older adult. He senses the genital similarities between the male animal and himself, and he recognizes the relationship between the animal’s performance and reactions and his own capacities. His enjoyment of the relationship is enhanced by the fact that the male animal responds to the point of orgasm, and in at least some cases he is disappointed that the female animal (with rare exceptions) shows no erotic arousal and fails to experience orgasm. For these reasons, many a farm boy has as much contact with male animals as he does with female animals. There is considerable basis for calling such activity homosexual, but since it is not recognized as such by most of the boys who are involved, they are in no conflict over that fact.

Psychically, animal relations may become of considerable significance to the boy who is having regular experience. While his initial contacts may involve little more than the satisfaction which is to be obtained from physical stimulation, the situation becomes quite different for the boy who is having frequent contacts with particular animals. The depth of the boy’s psychic response is evidenced by his quick erection and by the ease with which he may reach orgasm in his relations with the animal. The psychic significance of his experience is particularly evidenced by the fact that animal contacts may become a regular part of his nocturnal dreams. Moreover, many a farm boy, while masturbating, develops erotic fantasies of himself in contact with some animal. In some cases the boy may develop an affectional relation with the particular animal with which he has his contacts, and there are males who are quite upset emotionally, when situations force them to sever connections with the particular animal. If this seems a strange perversion of human affection, it should be recalled that exactly the same sort of affectional relationship is developed in many a household where there are pets; and it is not uncommon for persons, everywhere in our society, to become considerably upset at the loss of a pet dog or cat which has been in the home for some period of time. The elements that are involved in sexual contacts between the human and animals of other species are at no point basically different from those that are involved in erotic responses to human situations.

On the other side of the record, it is to be noted that male dogs who have been masturbated may become considerably attached to the persons who provide the stimulation; and there are records of male dogs who completely forsake the females of their own species in preference for the sexual contacts that may be had with a human partner.

Among the 89 females who had had pre-adolescent animal experience, general body contacts and masturbation of the animal had been involved in most cases. But out of the 5940 females in the sample, 23 had had dogs put their mouths on their genitalia, 6 had had cats similarly perform, and 2 had had coitus with dogs.

       As for females after they had become adolescent, nearly all of the contacts had occurred with dogs or cats which were household pets. Nearly three-quarters (74 per cent) of the females had had contacts with dogs.
That the majority of female contacts with animals are had with dogs is also noted in: Mantegazza 1885:128-131. Moraglia 1897:6. Féré 1904:184. Havelock Ellis 1906(5):83. Hoyer 1929:252. Kelly 1930:184. Chideckel 1935:315. Haire 1937:484. Hirschfeld 1940:138.
       Over half of the relationships had involved only general body contacts with the animal. In some instances, the females had only touched the animal's genitalia; in other instances, there had been more specific masturbation of the animal. For some 21 per cent of the females, the animal had manipulated the human genitalia with its mouth, but in only one of the adult cases had there been actual coitus with the animal. There were, however, additional cases of coitus in other segments of the female sample which were not utilized in the calculations for the present volume.
       In 25 out of the 5793 adult histories on which we have data concerning animal contacts, the human female had been brought to orgasm by her sexual contacts with the animal, chiefly as a result of the animal’s manipulation of her genitalia with its mouth.

With most males, animal contacts represent a passing chapter in the sexual history. They are replaced by coitus with human females as soon as that is available. On the other hand, the male who has had any considerable amount of animal experience may become so conditioned that he still finds himself erotically aroused by contemplating such possibilities, even years after he has stopped having actual contacts.

As we have previously pointed out, the farm boy may begin his sexual contacts with animals because he responds sympathetically upon observing their sexual activities. With the mating animals he can, to a considerable degree, identify his own anatomic and physiologic capacities. Moreover, the boy may come into contact with freer discussions of sex at an earlier age than most boys who are not raised on farms, and in many instances he has an example set for him by other boys whom he discovers having sexual contacts with the farm animals. Not infrequently he hears adults in the community discuss such matters. The comments are usually bantering and not too severely condemnatory.

But none of these factors are of equal significance to the female. At earlier ages, girls do not discuss sexual activities as freely or as frequently as boys do, and they less often observe sexual activity among other girls or even among the farm animals. The specific record shows that some 32 per cent of the adult males in the sample had been erotically aroused when they saw animals in coitus, while only 16 per cent of the females had been so aroused. The histories indicate that many of the farm-bred females had been oblivious to the coital activities which went on about them. Quite frequently they had been kept away from breeding animals by their parents, and we find that a good many of the rural females in the sample had not learned that coitus was possible in any animal, let alone the human, until they were adolescent or still older. As a result, the animal contacts which the females had made were usually the consequence of their own discovery of such possibilities, whether the first experiences were had in pre-adolescence or in more adult years. Most of the farm boys had acquired that much information some years before adolescence.

It is not surprising then, to find that the incidences and frequencies of the animal contacts made by the females in the sample were much lower than the incidences and frequencies which we found among the males in the sample.
A number of other authors have also recognized that females make animal contacts less often than males. See, for instance: Gasan ca.l900(4) :67. Bloch 1908:642; 1909:704. Kelly 1930:183. Dubois-Desaulle 1933:143. Chideckel 1935:312.

The incidences and frequencies and significance of animal contacts as a source of outlet for the human female are obviously a minute fraction of what most human males have guessed them to be. The present data consequently illuminate some of the basic differences between the sexual psychology of the human female and male, and show something of the effects that such differences in psychology may have on the overt behavior of the two sexes.

Considering the rarity of sexual contacts between females and animals of other species, it is interesting to find specific recognition of such contacts in the moral and legal codes.

In ancient codes and laws, there were frequent references to human males having animal contacts, and judgments and penalties were prescribed for such activity. The more ancient codes, however, appear to have ignored the possibilities of females having sexual contacts with animals.
See: Pritchard 1950:196-197. The code of Lipit-Ishtar, the code of Hammurabi, the Middle Assyrian Laws, and the Neo-Babylonian Laws contain no references to animal contacts, but the Hittite Laws have five references to male contacts with animals. Since the Hittite Laws are in essential agreement with other Near-Eastern codes, it may well be that the makers of these codes held the same opinion as the Hittites in regard to animal contacts. It must be recalled, however, that some of these codes are not known in toto.

And there are apparently only two references, both of them in Leviticus (parts of which represent a later development in Biblical law), concerning females who have sexual contacts with animals.
The injunction against and penalty for contact between a human female and an animal is in Leviticus 18:23 and 20:16. Also Exodus 22:19 might be considered applying to both sexes.

The Biblical references involve the prohibition of such acts, and demand death as the penalty for both the female and the animal. The Talmud, however, makes more frequent reference to such female activity, repeating the Biblical injunctions against it and imposing the same penalties. Finally the Talmud goes so far as to prohibit a female being alone with an animal because of the possible suspicion that she might have sexual contact with it, and this is unusual because it gives the matter more attention than is ordinarily given it in any of the other codes.
The Talmudic references to female contacts with animals are in: Kethuboth 65a, Yebamoth 59b, Sanhédrin 2a, 15a, 53a, and 55a, Abodah Zarah 22b-23a.

       The Catholic code on animal contacts logically follows the general concept that sexual function is justified only as a means of procreation, primarily in marriage, and all contacts between the human female or male and an animal of another species are consequently contrary to nature, a perversion of the primary function of sex, and sinful in deed or desire. The judgment would appear to apply to female as well as to male contacts.
Catholic interpretations of animal contacts are in: Arregui 1927:153-154, and Davis 1946(2):247, who specifically include the female. The “penitentials," partially secular and partially religious codes dating before the 13th century, occasionally refer to contacts between human females and animals. According to Havelock Ellis 1906(5):87-88, Burchard's penitential stipulates a seven-year penance for a female who has had sexual contact with a horse.
       Touching the genitalia of an animal even out of curiosity may be a sin, and touching it with lust may be a grave sin.
Touching an animal’s genitalia may vary from a light to a grave sin depending on the motivation, according to Davis 1946(2):249. Arregui 1927:156 adds that when such touching is necessary, as in animal breeding, it is best that it be done by older or married persons.
       The opinion is expressed that experience in animal contacts might be sufficient grounds for a separation.
Using the term ‘'divorce’’ to mean permanent separation with “the conjugal bond remaining,” Noldin 1904(3) :sec. 665 states: According to the probable opinion of learned men any alien sexual intercourse, even that which happens through sodomy or bestiality, suffices for instituting a divorce.

       As for 1953, the legal codes of essentially all of the states prohibit sexual relations between the human animal and animals of other species, usually rating them as bestiality or sodomy, and usually attaching the same penalties that are attached to homosexual relations. In a few instances the penalties are lower than those for homosexual relations; in some instances they are very severe.
Forty-four states specifically forbid sex relations with animals, and cases in three of the remaining (Ark., Del., and Vt.) indicate it is a crime, leaving only New Hampshire where such activity is not a felony or its equivalent. In Georgia up until 1949 the minimum penalty for the crime against nature when committed with another human was “imprisonment at labor in the penitentiary for and during the natural life of the person convicted,” whereas the penalty for “bestiality" was five to twenty years imprisonment. In eight states (Calif., Colo., Ida., Mo., Mont., Nev., N. M., and S. C.) the possible maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
       When there is no specific statute covering the matter, the common law ruling against bestiality would sometimes apply.
For the application of the common law ruling, see: State v. LaForrest 1899:45 Atl. (Vt.) 225.

       In some instances the statutes specifically indicate that they are applicable to both females and males.
For the application of the statutes to both female and male, see, for example : Georgia Code 1933:Title 26 §5903. Maryland Code 1951:Article 27 §627.
       In many instances they do not specifically designate the sex to which they apply, but in most such cases they would be interpreted to cover both sexes. It is probable, however, that the lawmakers in most instances had male activity in mind when they framed their statutes; and the question is quite academic, for cases of females who have been prosecuted for animal contacts are practically unknown in the legal record.

There are in the older literature a few records of females receiving the death penalty for such contacts, particularly in medieval history.
The death penalty for females making contacts with animals in medieval times is noted in: Mantegazza 1885:128-131. Havelock Ellis 1906(5):88. Hernandez [Fleuret and Perceau] 1920:83-94. Dubois-Desaulle 1933:58, 81-89. Robinson 1936:42-44.

We do not have any instance of legal action against any of the cases in our sample, and we find only one case in the published court records here in the United States.
The only published case in the U.S. of a female convicted because she had had contact with an animal is in: State v. Tarrant 1949:80 N.E.2d (Ohio) 509.

As we mentioned, Anglo-American legal codes rate sexual relations between the human and animals of other species as sodomy, punishable under the same laws which penalize homosexual and mouth-genital contacts. The city-bred judge who hears such a case is likely to be unusually severe in his condemnation, and is likely to give the maximum sentence that is possible. Males who are sent to penal institutions on such charges are likely to receive unusually severe treatment both from the administrations and from the inmates of the institutions. All in all, there is probably no type of human sexual behavior which has been more severely condemned by that segment of the population which happens not to have had such experience, and which accepts the age-old judgment that animal intercourse must evidence a mental abnormality, as well as an immorality.

On the other hand, in rural communities where animal contacts are not infrequent, and where there is some general knowledge that they do commonly occur, there seem to be few personal conflicts growing out of such activity, and very few social difficulties. It is only when the farm-bred male migrates to a city community and comes in contact with city-bred reactions to these activities, that he becomes upset over the contemplation of what he has done. This is particularly true if he learns through some psychology course or through books that such behavior is considered abnormal. There are histories of farm-bred males who have risen to positions of importance in the business, academic, or political world in some large urban center, and who have lived for years in constant fear that their early histories will be discovered. The clinician who can reassure these individuals that such activities are biologically and psychologically part of the normal mammalian picture, and that such contacts occur in as high a percentage of the farm population as we have already indicated, may contribute materially toward the resolution of these conflicts.

Summary and Comparisons of Female and Male Animal Contacts
	In Female	In Male
Mammalian Origins
Among mammals, inter-specific contacts common	Yes	Yes
Anthropologic Background
Animal contacts in other cultures	Rare in all	Occasional in some
Animal contacts in myth and folklore	Commonly	Less often
Incidence and Frequency
Accumulative incid. in pre-adol.	1.5%	3%
Erotic response	1.4%
Orgasm	0.3%	Rare
As source of first orgasm	Rare	Rare
Accumulative incid. in adult	3.6%	8% to orgasm
Erotic response	3.0%
Orgasm	0.4%	8%
Primarily before age 21	50%	Yes
Frequency, active sample, bf. age 21	Usually 1-2 times	0.1 per week
Animals chiefly involved	Dog, cat	Farm animals, pets
Techniques
General body contact	Common	Some
Masturbation of animal	Some	Common
Animal mouth on human genitals	Some	Some
Coitus	Very rare	Common
Social Significance
As a source of outlet	Insignif.	1%
Legal and religious injunctions
In Hammurabi’s code	No	No
In Hittite code	No	Yes
In Old Testament	No	Yes
In Talmud	Yes	Yes
In American statute law	Yes	Yes