<< Significance of Masturbation >>

There are no other sexual activities which involve anywhere near so many individuals as are involved in heterosexual coitus and masturbation; and there are no other activities which provide so large a proportion of the total orgasms which the average male experiences in his lifetime. For most males, coitus is primary, masturbation secondary in importance; but for males of the college level masturbation is, as we have seen, the chief source of outlet up to the time of marriage. It is a question whether activities which are as important as these can be altogether ignored, easily regulated, or completely ruled out of the lives of any large number of people. Unmarried youths who had neither masturbation nor coitus (nor the homosexual) in their histories would be left with essentially no outlet except nocturnal emissions. That would nearly amount to abstinence, for such emissions do not ordinarily account for more than 10 or 12 per cent of the orgasms of any group of males, and there is no evidence that the frequencies of such emissions can be materially increased by avoiding other sexual activities (Chapter 15). The moral desirability of eliminating masturbation is, of course, an issue whose merits scientists are not qualified to judge. Whether such a program is psychologically or socially desirable or physically possible for any large number of males is a question that can be submitted to scientific examination (Chapter 6).

When no guilt, anxieties, or fears are involved, the physical satisfactions which may be found in any type of sexual activity, whether socio-sexual or solitary, should leave an individual well adjusted psychologically. But in view of the more than two thousand years of religious condemnation of masturbation, fortified by the ostensibly scientific opinions of physicians and other professionally trained groups, it is not surprising that many individuals, both female and male, are considerably disturbed when they masturbate. Among the females in the sample who had ever masturbated, approximately half had experienced some psychologic disturbance over their experience (Table 39f). Some of them were disturbed for only a single year or two, but the average (median) female had been disturbed for six and a half years. Some 30 per cent had been disturbed for more than ten years. This means that some millions of the females in the United States, and a larger number of the males, have had their self-assurance, their social efficiency, and sometimes their sexual adjustments in marriage needlessly damaged—not by their masturbation, but by the conflict between their practice and the moral codes. There is no other type of sexual activity which has worried so many women.
That worry frequently does damage, while masturbation itself does none, is noted in the following: Bloch 1902(1):132-134. Adler 1911:93-97. Stekel 1912: 29-35. Wulffen 1913:260. Marro 1922:509. Fetscher 1928:48-50. Gerling 1928:49-51. Bauer 1929:240-241. Hodann 1929:45-91. Davis 1929:130-146, 164. Hirschfeld and Bohm 1930:148. Kelly 1930:171-175. Lazarsfeld 1931: 240. Malamud and Palmer 1932 ( includes a history of attitudes on masturbation). Meagher and Jelliffe 1936:106. Henry 1938:31 (“apprehensions regarding the consequences of masturbation are so deeply rooted that none can escape them”). Squier in Folsom 1938:137, Huschka 1938:347-352 (a list of threats used to frighten children who masturbate). Butterfield 1939:62 (damage from cultural taboos). Haire 1940:97-111; 1951:165-166. Sidonie Gruenberg 1943:5-6 (only injury is worry and fear). Faegre 1943:18 (guilt because of secrecy). Sadler and Sadler 1944:59. Wilhelm Reich 1945:110. Kirkendall 1947:32-33. Dearborn in Fishbein and Burgess 1947:361-367. Everett 1948:18. Allendy and Lobstein 1948:110 (harmfulness hes in mental conflict). Bleuler 1949:123-124. Niedermeyer in Hornstein and Faller 1950:137, 154. Remplein 1950:242-246. Levine 1951:123 (anxiety of parents has far reaching effect on children). Gollancz 1952:204-210 (a recent autobiographical account of the mental hell created by the conflict over masturbation in an adolescent boy). Much of the German literature suggests, curiously enough, that self-searching would bring remorse, even if there were no moralistic teaching. Lacking scientific evidence of the physical harm of masturbation, some authors in the 1920’s and 1930's turned to other interpretations, stating that masturbation breaks down the individual’s self-respect, destroys manliness or womanhood, leads to loss of mental powers, self-control, self-confidence, and in general interferes with the development of one’s character, as in: B. C. Gruenberg (for U. S. Public Health Service) 1922:51-52; (for Am. Soc. Hygiene Assoc.) 1932:45; B. G. Gruenberg and Kaukonen (for U. S. Public Health Service) 1940:67. U. S. Public Health Service 1930(?):5; 1934:6; 1937:10. Indiana State Board of Health n.d. :8. Macfadden 1922:30-31.

Table 39f. Attitudes Toward Masturbation among Females
Educational
Level		 Age Group
Bf. Adol. Adol.-15 16-20 21-25 26-3031-35 36-40 41-50
Worry
 

Percent

Total sample 38 4642 3230 27 2117
Educ. 9-12 41 4642 3737 32 2421
Educ. 13-16 38 4743 3229 27 2322
Educ. 17+ 36 4441 2925 22 1811
Acceptance
 

Percent
Total sample 35 4361 67 6973 78 81
Educ. 9-12 35 4255 60 6167 75 78
Educ. 13-16 33 4263 68 7275 80 80
Educ. 17+ 38 4661 70 7376 81 86
Number of Cases
Total sample 1023 15561979 1513 1118881 637 430
Educ. 9-12 162 281347 293 245201 127 82
Educ. 13-16 511 8331088 677 396291 201 123
Educ. 17+ 287 362475 514 450364 289 207

The sums of the total samples amount to less than 100 per cent in some age groups
because some individuals masturbate without worry and without conscious decision to accept;
they may amount to more than 100 per cent because some individuals worry over
and consciously accept their masturbation in different portions of the same age period.
Among the females in our sample who had never masturbated, 44 per cent said that they had not done so because they considered it morally wrong. It was apparent, however, that many of these females were so unresponsive sexually that they had found it a simple matter to accept the moral restrictions on their activity. More than three-fourths (81 per cent) who had never masturbated recognized that they had not done so because they had not felt any need for such an outlet. Some of them were already finding a sufficient release in some other type of activity, such as marital coitus, but many of them seemed to have a minimum of any capacity to be aroused sexually, and they had not recognized the need for any sort of regular outlet. More than a quarter (28 per cent) of those who had not masturbated, claimed that they had not done so because they did not know that masturbation was possible.

Millions of boys have lived in continual mental conflict over this problem. For that matter, many a boy still does. Many boys pass through a periodic succession of attempts to stop the habit, inevitable failures in those attempts, consequent periods of remorse, the making of new resolutions — and a new start on the whole cycle. It is difficult to imagine anything better calculated to do permanent damage to the personality of an individual.

Many persons believe that masturbation may harm one physically. Some of the females in the sample, for instance, had believed that masturbation was the cause of their facial pimples, mental dullness, poor posture, stomach upsets, ovarian pains, ovarian cysts, cancer, appendicitis, various infections, weak eyes, sterility, headaches, kidney troubles, weak hearts, lack of hormones, and other difficulties. But we have not been able to find evidence that any of these disturbances could have been caused by the masturbatory activities which were in the histories of these females. The fatigue which some of them recorded as an after-effect of masturbation appears to have been no greater than that which may follow any sort of sexual activity, solitary or socio-sexual. All sexual responses to the point of orgasm involve the utilization of a considerable amount of energy, but most persons recover from their exhaustion within a matter of minutes or, at the most, after a night of sleep. An occasional female has reported some genital irritation resulting from her masturbation, but this is, again, no more than what happens to any part of the body when it is subjected to contacts to which it is not accustomed.

It is significant that those who had most often found moral objections to masturbation were the ones who most often insisted that physical and mental damage had resulted from their activity.
The following are a few examples from the hundreds of authors who over the past years have insisted, without scientific evidence, that physical harm can result from masturbation in the female: Crouch (Bekker) 1741:20. Tissot 1764:57-67; 1775:46-53; 1777:46-53; 1785:59-68. Rosenbaum 1845:220-229. Martineau 1886:57-74. Moraglia 1897:9-10, 18. Alibert n.d.:83-87. G. Stanley Hall 1904(1):442-445. Talmey 1910:190-191 (leads to undermining of health and possible nervous prostration in young girls ). Jefferis and Nichols 1912:451 (results in slow and progressive derangement of her health). Winfield S. Hall 1920:83. Rohleder 1921:48. Coppens and Spalding 1921:114. Forel 1922:229-234 (especially dangerous in younger children). Marro (1900) 1922:83. Riolan 1927:48-54. Meyer 1929:32-33 (‘‘jeopardizes her entire physical growth and development”). Bauer 1929:240-241. Meagher 1929:95-96. Van der Hoog 1934:68. Meagher and Jelliffe 1936:103-104 (causes chronic pelvic congestion). Guze 1951:97-98 points out that the medical approach has been full of folklore and subjective emotional response. An extensive survey of authoritarian attitudes toward masturbation, with emphasis on the early medical literature, is found in Spitz 1952.

Throughout history, both the Jewish and Christian churches have condemned masturbation as either immoral or unnatural (Chapter 13). The religious condemnation of masturbation in our culture is justified on the ground that it is a perversion of the “primary purpose” of sex, which is taken to be reproduction.
Historically, the disapproval of masturbation goes back at least as far as the Book of the Dead 1550-950 b.c.; see Pritchard 1950:34. It was only mildly condemned in Greece and Rome. See: Licht 1932:313-315. But also see: Aeschines [4th cent, b.c.]: Against Ctesiphon, 174 (1919:445). Martial [1st cent. A.D.] IX.41 ( 1920(2):101; 1921:245-246). Plutarch [lst-2nd cent. A.D.]: Contradictions of the Stoics, 21 (Clough and Goodwin, Plutarch's Essays and Miscellanies 1905(4):450). Juvenal [lst-2nd cent, a.d.]: 7:238-241 ( 1789( 1) :367-369; 1817(1):322). Landmarks in the early European literature are: Crouch 1741:20 (masturbation is an abominable custom, a horrible sin, results in black-yellowish and leaden complexion, paroxysm, desiccation, emaciation, sterility, frigidity; little chance of cure. This early German book appears to be a translation of Bekker's English volume of the same title. Both are little known.forerunners of Tissot). Tissot 1764: This is the 3rd ed. of this French classic, “L’Onanisme,” published originally in Latin in 1758 in Lausanne. Chapter 5 (pp. 57-67) is devoted to the evils of female masturbation which is said to result in hysteria, dizziness, jaundice, deformed figure, exhaustion, pain, and death. Other early European works which violently attack female masturbation, the whole volume in some cases being devoted to that one topic, are: Bienville 1771:142-143. Anon. 1829:57, 110-113. Dubois 1848. Gamier (1889) 1921:338-340. Pouillet 1897. Moldau 1911:47-51.

Since masturbation cannot lead to procreation, it constitutes a perversion which ranks with homosexual activity, intercourse between the human animal and animals of other species, all heterosexual techniques which stop short of coitus, and some other sorts of sexual activity. In Orthodox Jewish codes, masturbation constitutes a major sin and, at times in Jewish history, a sin which was penalized with death.
For Jewish attitudes on masturbation, see the summary in: Epstein 1948:146-147 ( “the severest sin of all recorded in the scriptures. The ethical literature of post-Talmudic days, down to the latest centuries, endlessly harps on the severity of this sin, exhorts its avoidance, points out its danger to health, threatens dire punishment in the day of reckoning, and pleads for penitence and expiation”). The Catholic code is specific in its condemnation of female masturbation as a gravely illicit act and a sin against nature, although it does not consider it as sinful as male pollution. See: Arregui 1927:151, 533. Davis 1946(4) :256; 1946(2):237, 242. Masturbation is apparently permitted to a married woman immediately before or after coitus in order to reach orgasm, according to Arregui 1927:533, and Davis 1946(4):252.

Catholic sex codes originated among the Jewish founders of the early Church, and they similarly condemn masturbation as a carnal sin. For some centuries Protestant groups accepted these same interpretations, although more recently some of them have attempted to utilize more scientific data.
European examples of the more recent religious condemnation of masturbation are reviewed in: Hodann 1929:66-91; 1937:249-254, who cites such Catholic writers as Kapff, Schilgen, Gutmann, and Liertz. Among Protestant writers he names Seher 1925, Emsmann, various White Cross writers, Siedel, Levsen, Wondratschek, Hellwig, Vermeil.

In more recent years, with an increase in public respect for science, the moral arguments have been supported with statements concerning the physical and mental harm supposed to come from the continuance of such a habit. The older males who have contributed to the present study were adolescent in a day in which there was widespread teaching against the sin of self-abuse (e.g., Vecki 1901, 1920, G. S. Hall 1904, W. S. Hall 1907, 1909, 1920, Boy Scout Manual, all editions 1911-1945, Jefferis and Nichols 1912, Wulffen 1913, Lieber 1920, U. S. Public Health Service 1921, 1934, Coppens and Spalding 1921, Forel 1922, Meyer 1927, 1929a, 1929b, Weatherhead 1932, Bloch 1933, Crisp 1939, T. V. Moore 1945). Every conceivable ill from pimples to insanity, including stooped shoulders, loss of weight, fatigue, insomnia, general weakness, neurasthenia, loss of manly vigor, weak eyes, digestive upsets, stomach ulcers, impotence, feeblemindedness, genital cancer, and the rest, was ascribed to masturbation. Feeble-minded and insane individuals in the neighborhood were held up as horrid examples of the result of masturbation, and the authorities in mental institutions maintained separate wards for those whose insanity was supposed to have originated from such practices. Patients in such institutions were observed to engage in frequent masturbation, and this seemed sufficient proof that the insanity was a product of the sexual behavior. Since the lives of university scholars were not so easily observed, it was not so generally known that masturbation occurred quite as frequently among them. Thousands of patients in mental institutions were put into strait jackets or other restraints, on the assumption that they had no chance of recovery unless the masturbation was controlled and cured. There are mental institutions which are operated on the same theory today. In many penal institutions inmates may still be punished severely if found masturbating, and in some homes for children and in some other institutions the older attitudes are still enforced. The United States Naval Academy at Annapolis rules that a candidate “shall be rejected by the examining surgeon for ... evidence of... masturbation” (U. S. Navy Dpt. 1940).

While public opinion in Europe and America has largely accepted the Judeo-Christian attitudes toward masturbation, it is notable that these codes have never been accepted as part of the statute law. There are only two of the states, Indiana and Wyoming, which consider it a crime to encourage a person to masturbate, and no state makes it a criminal offense for an individual to engage in self-masturbation. Society may be concerned when an individual procreates, but it has not always been so certain that social interests are involved when the individual engages in solitary sexual activities which do not lead to procreation.
For state laws covering masturbation see: Ind. Stat. Ann. 1933: §10-4221. Wyo. Comp. Stat. 1945: §9-520.

Such rationalizatiens are of ancient standing, and they have been perpetuated into the present day by a surprising number of physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators.
More recently it has become customary to emphasize the physical or psychologic effects of excessive masturbation. Since the term ‘‘excessive” is entirely uninterpretable, the psychologic result of such condemnation is much the same. See: Moll 1909:163; 1912:181. Havelock Ellis 1910(1):259 (one of the first to discount the harm of moderate masturbation and to stress the possible damage of excessive masturbation). Gudden 1911:14. Adler 1911:94. Wulffen 1913:260-265. Sanger n.d.:40 (“never found anyone so repulsive as the chronic masturbator”). Vecki 1920:210. Menzies 1921:52. Fetscher 1928: 49 (leads to nervous exhaustion). Gerling 1928:49-51. Elliott and Bone 1929:77. Dickerson 1931:129-130. Dickinson and Beam 1934:251, 426. Meagher and Jelliffe 1936:82. Rosanoff 1938:153 (leads to use of too much physical and psychic energy, upsetting the balance of life). Steinhardt 1938: 72—73 ( causes breakdown of physical health, with likelihood of end in asylum or early grave). Parker n.d. (American Soçial Hygiene Assoc.):9 (if excessive, may impair physical and mental energy). Bonnar 1941:149. Snow 1941:5 (if persistent or frequent, doctor should be consulted). Corner and Landis 1941:11 (if excessively frequent, the wise parent will seek medical advice and treatment). Keller 1942:7. Sidonie Gruenberg 1943:5-6 (children who masturbate may be told they will be happier if they do not do it very often ). Thornton 1946:77. Boys’ Clubs of America 1946:6 (affects general health). English in Fishbein and Burgess 1947:105. Everett 1948:18. Bleuler 1949: 406. Foster 1950:144 (“It does not ordinarily, if practiced only a short time as a young person or child, offset one’s ability to marry and carry on normal sexual relations”).

But such arguments are obviously attempts to justify the moral code, and are not supported by any examination of the physical fact.
Commendable examples of moral evaluations of masturbation which do not attempt to judge the physical outcome, are, for instance, in: Northcote 1916: 424-427. Weatherhead 1932:125-128. Ruland and Rattler 1934:308-310. Davis 1946(2):241-246. Remplein 1950:242-246.

For several decades now, educators, clinical psychologists and psychiatrists, and some of the general medical practitioners have come to agree that the physical effects of masturbation are not fundamentally different from the physical effects of any other sexual activity, and that any mental harm resulting from masturbation is an outcome of the conflicts introduced by the condemnation of the boy’s activity (e.g., Tenenbaum in Robinson 1936, Willoughby 1937, Haire 1937, Butterfield 1939, Himes 1940, Kirkendall 1940, Allen 1940, Weiss and English 1943, Sadler and Sadler 1944, English and Pearson 1945, Frank 1946, Seward 1946).

In the present study we have examined the histories of 5300 males, of which about 5100 record experience in masturbation. It would be difficult to show that the masturbatory activities have done measurable damage to any of these individuals, with the very rare exception of the psychotic who is compulsive in his behavior. On the other hand, the record does include thousands of cases of boys living in continual conflict, fearful of social disgrace, oftentimes disturbed over the effect of such behavior on their ultimate sexual capacities, occasionally attempting suicide — as a result of the teachings concerning masturbation. For the boys who have not been too disturbed psychically, masturbation has, however, provided a regular sexual outlet which has alleviated nervous tensions; and the record is clear in many cases that these boys have on the whole lived more balanced lives than the boys who have been more restrained in their sexual activities (Chapter 6). The resolution adopted at an American Medical Association convention in 1917 asserting that there is no evidence that abstinence from sex activity is “inconsistent with the highest physical, mental and moral efficiency” would be questioned by most clinical psychologists and psychiatrists today, and is definitely contrary to the findings in the present study (Chapter 6).

On the basis of our review of more than five thousand cases of males who had masturbated, and on the basis of the data now available on nearly twenty-eight hundred cases of females with masturbatory experience, we may assert that we have recognized exceedingly few cases, if indeed there have been any outside of a few psychotics, in which either physical or mental damage had resulted from masturbatory activity.

We have, on the other hand, recognized a tremendous amount of damage which has been the result of worry over masturbation, and of attempts to abstain from such activity.

The scientific judgments are, however, not fully accepted by the persons who have been most interested in sex education (Bigelow 1916, Eddy 1928a, 1928b, Elliott and Bone 1929, Amer. Soc. Hyg. Assoc. 1930, Dickerson 1930, 1933, Rice 1933, Strain 1934, Ellis 1936, Snow 1937, Henry 1938, Rosanoff 1938, Stone and Stone 1937, Laton and Bailey 1940, Lovell 1940, Gruenberg and Kaukonen 1940, Corner and Landis 1941, Boys Club Amer. 1946, Hyman 1946, Landis and Bolles 1946, Thornton 1946, Popenoe 1946).

In this literature it has become customary to admit that the earlier teachings greatly exaggerated the possible harms of masturbation; but the conclusion is nevertheless reached that no manly youth will want to accept such a habit as part of his lifelong pattern. The boy is advised that a limited amount of masturbation may do him no harm, but that in excess it is something which needs the attention of a physician. Since the point at which excess begins is never defined, the conscientious boy is left uncertain whether his own rate is going to harm him; and psychiatrists will quickly recognize that such subtle and indirect condemnation can do as much damage to the boy’s personality as the more extreme teaching of the older day. One needs to be reminded again (as in Chapter 6) that there is tremendous individual variation in the human male’s capacity to engage in sexual activity without undue fatigue or other physical harm. Some individuals reach their limits when they experience orgasm once in a week or two. The average adolescent boy is quite capable of three or four ejaculations per week, and there are boys who are capable of seven to fourteen or more per week without incurring any greater disturbance than that which accompanies the infrequent activities of less capable males. Like many other physiologic functions, erotic response depends upon a remarkably foolproof mechanism. When one reaches the limit of physiologic endurance he no longer responds erotically. He is no longer capable of erection and finds little incentive to force the situation. Once or twice in a lifetime a few of the males may try to establish a record of repeated orgasms, and extreme fatigue and even some local pain may result; but, except by a few psychotics, this type of performance is not likely to be repeated.

Many of the persons who are responsible for the compromised attitudes found in the sex literature cited above are physicians. Even psychiatrists are divided on this question. In general, those who were raised in Europe, as were many of the psychiatrists who are now in this country, consider masturbation an infantile substitute for heterosexual coitus, which latter activity they take to be synonymous with a good sexual adjustment. Often these clinicians are amazed to find masturbation persisting into the adult lives of American males, and look upon masturbation in the history of the married male as nothing short of pathologic. This is, of course, merely a rationalization of their own European mores. American psychiatrists, on the contrary, with their American backgrounds, are much more acceptant of the same activity.

Freud and most of the psychoanalysts have recognized that masturbation does no physical harm, but they have introduced new sources of psychologic disturbance by rating the activity infantile, immature, and a personality defect which merits psychiatric attention when it occurs in an adult. But these objections merely perpetuate the Talmudic traditions which are now being fortified with a new set of terms which appear to have scientific significance. Many adults who are not immature in any realistic sense do masturbate, and there is no science in refusing to recognize this fact.
For psychoanalytic interpretations, see: Wiener psa. Ver., Die Onanie, 1912 (especially Freud:133-140, and Rank:107-129). Zeitschr. f. psa. Pädagogik 1927-1928 (4, 5, 6). Fenichel 1945:75-76, 371-372. Annie Reich 1951: 80-94. The latter is a historical survey of the shift in the psychoanalyst’s attitude toward masturbation as represented by the 1912 and 1928 Vienna discussions. The early over-evaluation of the danger of masturbation which, Annie Reich points out, grew in part from the sexual repression of the analysts themselves, was followed in 1928 ( in Federn especially ) by general approval. The author repudiates this stand, citing Fenichers statement that masturbation is normal only in childhood and adolescence.

Although masturbation may do no physical harm, and although it may do no mental harm unless psychic conflicts are involved, it still remains to be determined what relations there may be between masturbation and socio-sexual adjustments (Henry 1938). It is now clear that masturbation is relied upon by the upper level primarily because it has an insufficient outlet through heterosexual coitus. This is, to a degree, an escape from reality, and the effect upon the ultimate personality of the individual is something that needs consideration. It is to be noted again (Chapter 11) that at age fifty-five the college-bred males derive only 62 per cent of their total outlet from marital intercourse, and that 19 per cent of the outlet at that age is derived from the dream world which accompanies masturbation or nocturnal emissions. Any final assay of the significance of masturbation should take these and still other specific data into account.

Most females masturbate for the sake of the immediate satisfactions which they may obtain, and as a means of resolving the physiologic disturbances which arise when they are aroused sexually and are restrained by the social custom from having socio-sexual contacts.
Masturbation as a substitute or additional outlet ( the Notonanie of German authors) is also noted in: Moraglia 1897:8-9. Adler 1911:106. Hirschfeld 1916:127. Rohleder 1921:176-177. Moll 1926(1):292. Riolan 1927:41, 46. Hodann 1929:84-85. Remplein 1950:246-247.

We have already noted that a variety of physiologic disturbances, including a considerable development of neuromuscular tensions, are involved whenever there is sexual arousal. When the sexual responses lead to orgasm, these tensions are suddenly released and the individual thereupon returns to a physiologically normal or subnormal state. Then she may function more efficiently in her everyday affairs. But without the release which orgasm can bring, most males and some females may continue to be disturbed for some period of time, and the prolongation of such a disturbance may distract or otherwise interfere with one’s general efficiency. The individual may become nervous, irritable, incapable of concentrating on any sort of problem, and difficult to live with. Most persons live more happily with themselves and with other persons if their sexual arousal, whenever it is of any magnitude, may be carried through to the point of orgasm.
Others who agree that little or no physical harm results from masturbation in either sex include: Hunter 1786:200 (“I think I may affirm that this act in itself does less harm to the constitution in general than the natural [coitus]”). Moll 1909:162-167; 1912:180-185 (judgment based on many specific cases). Orsi 1913:141-148 (masturbation is a variant of love, and condemnatory attitude is unjustified). Stekel 1912:42 (in disagreement with many other psychoanalysts); 1920:53, 99; 1950:60, 204. Steiner 1912:130. Hodann 1929: 38-39. Davis 1929:96. Weatherhead 1932:123-125. Landis et al. 1940:58. Lees 1944:336 (as normal in children as eating and sleeping). Taylor acc. Brill 1946:102 (no harm at all; a good thing). Dearborn in Fishbein and Burgess 1947:361-364, 366 (an excellent discussion, pointing out lack of evidence of harm even when frequent). Strain 1948:181 (science has repudiated its harmfulness). Stokes 1948:16, 94 (normal in childhood, harmless at all times). Bleuler 1949:123-124. Brown and Kempton 1950:212 (an acceptable outlet for the single woman). Levine 1951:123. Horrocks 1951:203. Dearborn 1952:51-53 (stresses need of informing general public regarding harmlessness). Specific mention of the beneficial effects of masturbation is found, for instance, in: Guttzeit acc. Adler 1911:96. Stekel 1920:24-25; 1950: 43 (abstinence may bring neuroses). Moll 1921:623 (may be beneficial and soothing to nerves). Long 1922:125-126 (recommends it for brides to be, separated couples, widows, and spinsters). Eberhard 1924:304 (increases mental alertness in women). Robie 1925:133-136 (beneficial in many cases). Hoyer 1929:219-220 (especially beneficial for women). Blanchard and Manasses 1930:34 (may serve a useful purpose). Hirschfeld 1930:525 (moderate masturbation in adolescent is relaxing). Hutton 1937:78-80 (gives relief to the single woman). Bender 1939:578 (a very important part of the child's normal development). Adams 1946:32 (no reason for considering it an undesirable mode of sex release). Harper 1949:80-81 (serves as a tension release for many). Comfort 1950:96-101 (complete endorsement). Kellogg 1953:175 (“a normal and wholesome action for any person of any age”).

Table 40f. Sources of Information Leading to Acceptance of Masturbation
Sources of Information Total
Sample		 Educational Level
9-12 13-16 17 +
Percent
Printed material 5448 55 55
Professional consultants 30 2331 33
Companions 11 1711 8
Own observations 8 108 7
Parents 41 3 4
Other sources — 00 1
Number of cases 459 69 238 146

The sums may amount to more than 100 per cent
because more than one source of information may influence an individual’s attitudes.
The N’s are small because the question was asked in only a portion of all cases.

Whatever may affect the efficiency of some millions of individuals may be considered of social concern. Whether masturbation provides a satisfactory source of sexual outlet or becomes a source of psychologic disturbance is, therefore, a question of some social import. Masturbation may be of still greater social importance if it affects an individual's sexual adjustments in marriage.

Some of the psychoanalysts have suggested that masturbation, because it depends primarily upon clitoral and labial stimulation, concentrates erotic response in the external genitalia and does not train the individual for the “vaginal responses” which they consider must be present before there is any “sexual maturity.” But actually the vagina is, in most females, quite devoid of end organs of touch. It is incapable of responding to tactile stimulation, and the areas primarily involved in the female’s sensory responses during coitus are exactly those which are primarily involved in masturbation, namely the clitoris and the labia. We have seen very few cases of females who had encountered any difficulty in transferring their masturbatory experience to coitus, although we have seen some hundreds of cases of females who were considerably disturbed because they were unable to accomplish the anatomic impossibility of “transferring their clitoral reactions to vaginal responses.”

It is true that the girl who has nothing but masturbatory experience prior to marriage encounters a new type of situation when vaginal insertions are first encountered in coitus. She would, however, have the same problem to meet if she had never masturbated.

It has been claimed that pre-marital masturbatory experience may so condition an individual that she may want to continue solitary activities in preference to having coital relations after marriage; but we have seen very few histories of this sort. There are more cases of marital relations which were disturbed by some guilt which the wives had acquired during their pre-marital masturbatory experience.
The largely unsubstantiated claim that masturbation in the female leads to an aversion for coitus or does damage to the female’s capacity for orgasm in marital intercourse is made, for instance, in: Crouch (Bekker) 1741:316. Tissot 1775:49. Hammond 1887:302. Sturgis 1908:25. Havelock Ellis 1910(1):261-262. Adler 1911:91-120. Talmey 1915:241. Eberhard 1924:257, 302. Stone 1924:50. Elliott and Bone 1929:78. Kelly 1930:171. Lazarsfeld 1931:245. Robinson 1931:135. Sanger n.d.:39. Bruckner 1937:29 (leaves no incentive to marry and rear a family). Keller 1942:15. Hühner 1945:224. Davis 1946 (2):252 (a Catholic code). Duvall 1950:92. Kroger and Freed 1951:387.

Much more important is the evidence that pre-marital experience in masturbation may actually contribute to the female’s capacity to respond in her coital relations in marriage. It has been pointed out repeatedly, and our own data confirm the opinion, that a considerable portion of the sexual maladjustment in marriage arises from the fact  that the average female is aroused sexually less often than the average male, and that she frequently has difficulty in reaching orgasm in her marital coitus. There are a variety of factors involved in this failure, the most significant of which seems to be the female’s inexperience in orgasm prior to her marriage. Some 36 per cent of the females in our sample had not experienced orgasm on even a single occasion, from any type of sexual activity, prior to marriage. Only half of them had had a regular outlet prior to marriage.

Calculations on the marital histories indicate that those females who had not responded to the point of orgasm prior to marriage, failed to respond after marriage three times as often as the females who had had a fair amount of orgasmic experience before marriage. It is true that there were many individuals who did respond promptly after marriage even though they had not experienced orgasm before then; but the chances of working out such adjustments seem to have been materially reduced for the girl who had not previously learned what it means to let herself go and respond uninhibitedly in sexual orgasm. The girl who has spent her pre-marital years withdrawing from physical contacts and tensing her muscles in order to avoid response has acquired a set of nervous and muscular coordinations which she does not unlearn easily after marriage.

The type of pre-marital activity in which the female had acquired her experience did not appear to have been as important as the fact that she had or had not experienced orgasm. This appears to have been true whether her pre-marital experience was in coitus, in petting to the point of orgasm, in homosexual relations, or in masturbation. Since masturbation was the activity in which the largest number of females had reached orgasm, it was of particular significance in these correlations.

Among those females in the sample who had never masturbated before marriage, or whose masturbation had never led to orgasm, about a third (31 to 37 per cent) had failed to reach orgasm in their coitus during the first year, and in most instances during the first five years of their marriages. But among those who had masturbated to the point of orgasm before marriage, only 13 to 16 per cent had been totally unresponsive in the early years of marriage. A selective factor may have been involved. The more responsive females may have been the ones who masturbated before marriage, and the ones who responded more often in their marital coitus. On the other hand, a causal relationship seems also to have been involved. In many a specific history it appeared that the quality of the marital response was furthered by the female’s previous knowledge of the nature of a sexual orgasm. In any event, it was certain that the capacity to respond in orgasm in marital coitus had not been lessened by the pre-marital masturbatory experience of the females in the sample.

Table 180f. Summary And Comparisons of Female and Male Masturbation
 In Females In Males
Mammalian and Human Backgrounds
Masturbation in other mammals In some species In many species
Masturbation to orgasm in mammals Uncertain In some
Masturbation in primitive societies Limited data Some data

Learning to Masturbate

Self-discovery 57% 28%
Verbal and printed sources 43%75%
Petting 12%—
Observation 11% 40%
Homosexual contact 3%9%

Accumulative incidence
Total: experience 62% 93%
Total: with orgasm 58%92%
By age 12 12% 21%
By age 1520% 82%
By age 20 33% 92%
Active incidence to orgasm Increases to middle age Decreases after teens
In various groups 20-58% 19-88%
Higher in married groups NoNo
Frequency (active median) to orgasm Uniform to midfifties Steady decrease after teens
Average, unmarried groups 0.3-0.4 per wk. 0.4-1.8 per wk.
Average, married groups 0.2 per wk. 0.1-0.2 per wk.
Individual variation Very great Less

Percentage of total outlet

In unmarried groups 37-85% 31-70%
In married groups About 10%4-6%
In previously married groups 13-44% 8-18%

Number of years involved by age 31-35

1 year or less 9% Very few
For median individual 14 years 
Discontinuity In 15% Unusual

Relation to Educational Level

Accumulative incidence to orgasm
Grade school group 34% 89%
High school group 59% 95%
College group 57% 96%
Graduate group 63%

Active incidence
low in grade school, high in graduate group Yes Yes

Frequency (active median) to orgasm

 No relation Higher in college groups

Percentage of total outlet

 Most in college groups 2 to 7 times more in college groups
Relation to Parental Occupational Class Little or none Little

Relation to Decade of Birth
Accumulative incidence to orgasm 10% increase in later decades Slight increase only in lower educ. level
Active incidence to orgasm Little or no change Small increase
Frequency (active median) to orgasm Little or no change Slight increase
Percentage of total outlet Decrease in later decades  

Relation to Age at Onset of Adolescence
Incidence and frequency to orgasm No relation Higher in early adol. groups

Relation to Rural-Urban Background
Accumulative incidence to orgasm Higher in urban Little relation?
Active incidence to orgasm Higher in older urban groups Little relation
Frequency (active median) to orgasm No relation Little relation
Percentage of total outlet Less in urban Slightly less in urban

Relation to Religious Background
Accumulative incidence to orgasm Much lower in devout groups  
Active incidences to orgasm Much lower in devout groups Somewhat lower in devout groups
Frequency (active median) to orgasm No relation Somewhat lower in devout groups
Percentage of total outlet Higher in more devout Higher in devout groups?

Techniques of Masturbation
Genital manipulation 84% 95%
Thigh pressures 10% Rare
Muscular tensions 5% Rare
Vaginal insertions, ever 20% 
Fantasy alone 2% Extremely rare

Fantasy Accompanying Masturbation
Almost always fantasy 50% 72%
Sometimes fantasy 14% 17%
Content Occasionally surpasses experience Usually surpasses experience
Relation to educational level None More frequent in better educated

Significance of Masturbation
Source of pleasure Yes Yes
Satisfies a physiologic need Yes Yes
Physical harm None None
May contribute to psych, well-being Yes Yes
Worry, ever 47% Majority
May increase social efficiency Yes Yes
Contributes to higher rate of orgasm in marriage Yes No relation?
Contributes to multiorgasm in marriage Yes Yes


>>