Co‐marital sex and the sexual freedom movement∗

The two preceding presentations by Dr. O'Neill and Dr. Bartell have described sub-cultural variations in group activities in the New York City area and the Chicago suburbs, respectively. Each employed a different means of investigative access-the O'Neills using informal channels and the Bartells, at least initially, heavily relying on swingers' ads. Each used different criteria of sample selection. A most important distinction is that the Bartells chose to study suburbanites, eliminating from their sample urban dwellers whom they found to be substantially different in their group expression. We introduce to you a third variation, but one which bears a substantial similarity to the O'Neill's findings. Our study was centered in the San Francisco Bay area primarily, and we gained access initially through organized sexual groups. Along with the more general differences in regional environments, we feel that the means of access and sample selection are important variables in accounting for and understanding the apparent differences in findings. Taking these variables into account, the differences seem to fall into rather clear sub-cultural variations evidencing two primary types of motivational patterns. The data we have gathered aid us in describing both types and there is no initial reason to believe the research to date is anything but compatible or even mutually reinforcing. In assessing the presentations let us suggest two very common but useful analogies, those of the persons exploring the elephant and the visibility of the iceberg. They are instructive in that they indicate serious limitations placed on any study designed at this point to analyze attempts at freedom. A wide range of socio-sexual phenomena from public nudity on stages and in bars to private but accessible sex groups are entering into that range of vision known as social science. As systematic observation and research pertaining to the freedom movement