The control group contained the fewest members who had had animal contact (8 per cent) and the heterosexual aggressors vs. minors contained the most (33 per cent). However, the number of aggressors vs. minors is uncomfortably small and the 33 per cent figure is unusually large. Aside from this group, the incidence of animal contact ranges from 8 to 24 per cent. Within this range the only significant clustering is that of the homosexual offenders who occupy second, third, and fourth places in a rank-order, with from 22 to 24 per cent of their members experienced in animal contact. Interestingly enough, the homosexual offenders are not particularly rural—indeed, the homosexual offenders vs. adults are the least rural of any group. However, the homosexual offenders are characterized by high frequencies of self-masturbation, which leads us to formulate the hypothesis that animal contact and self-masturbation are functionally and psychologically akin. The aggressors vs. minors also displayed high masturbation frequencies at the ages when animal contact is most likely to occur, higher than any group save the homosexual offenders. Animal contact also seems to correlate with early puberty: the homosexual offenders and the aggressors vs. minors all experienced early pubescence.

The repeated indirect association between animal contact and homosexuality motivated us to investigate further. We examined every case history in the control and prison groups and found in both a direct positive relationship. In the control group 34 per cent had had postpubertal homosexual experience; and 15 per cent had had more than incidental experience; among those members of the control group who had postpubertal animal contact, 52 per cent also had had homosexual experience and 23 per cent had had more than incidental homosexual experience. In the prison group the equivalent percentages for the total group vs. those with animal contact are 60 vs. 89 per cent with homosexual experience, and 39 vs. 74 per cent with more than incidental homosexual experience. There was no particular tendency for one activity to antedate the other, and one is left with the impression that the relationship stems from a common polymorphism and experimental attitude. Since this is more a subject for a study of homosexuality than for a study of sex offenders, it was not pursued further.

It is interesting that the influence of a rural background is not readily evident. In the general population this is a factor of prime importance. Yet in this present study we observe that the most rural group, the incest offenders vs. adults, rank low in incidence of animal contact whereas the least rural group, the homosexual offenders vs. adults, rank second. However, the correlation between rurality and incidence of animal contact becomes evident when one compares within each group the percentages of individuals with experience in animal contact according to whether they were urban, incidentally rural, or more than incidentally rural. In nine of the 12 available comparative groups the percentage with such experience is highest among the more than incidentally rural, and in nine groups the figures for the incidentally rural exceed those of the urban.

*332\161\2*