Wilma Freidman: Sorority Affair

The following case is intriguing as it explains in depth the operations and motivations of a female pedophile who was caught-a rarity in the world of sexual crime. Because of limited space, the case will be told in narrative form.

Mary was in her middle thirties and a teacher of English at one of the local high schools in a city of large population. A widow, her husband having been killed in the conflict of the fifties, Mary is a fairly attractive brunette. Her figure is excellent; her manner and demeanor are those of education and good breeding. She has a degree in education from a good women's college. She is well thought of and respected in her profession of teaching. She has no children. To look at her, to talk with her… one would never think she was a pedophile in the worst way, and addicted to numerous perversions.

Mary was not always a pedophile, and there is nothing in her sexual history to indicate the trauma that triggered the change from normal psychosexual drives to the paraesthesia of pedophilia. She reports her childhood as happy, filled with love and all the material necessities. Her family was without any moral or social blemish, all its members the products of middle class morality and social outlook. Not the least trace of neuroses or sexual abnormality. Mary has a sister and two brothers; all are married and well adjusted.

Mary had her first sex experience when she was fourteen years old, at a high school dance, when her date tried to fondle her breasts. She did not permit the boy to do so and stopped him immediately. A year later, however, she submitted to fondling by another boy, enjoying the sensation so much that she even. Permitted him, finally, to masturbate her to an orgasm-her first. She did not touch or caress his penis nor permit him to have intercourse with her; yet she did watch with fascination as he masturbated himself to ejaculation-before her eyes.

Ages sixteen and seventeen, Mary dated frequently, petting to climax with some of her dates, indulging in activities that were on par with other girls-and boys of her age and social group. Petting consisted of kissing-mouth-breast fondling and Mary's receiving digital stimulation from the boy. Now and then her date might suck her breasts and nipples while she satisfied him with fondling and masturbating him. In spite of what many parents think and pretend to believe, such sexual activity between teenagers is considered normal and not the least bit surprising to sexologists.

A boy performed cunnilinugus on Mary when she was eighteen, an act which shocked and disgusted her, leaving her with a feeling of intense shame. As she related: "I had expected my date to masturbate me, knowing my personal morals, as he had dated me previously, he knew I would not permit sexual intercourse. I had permitted him to remove my panties to facilitate masturbation. I was startled when he got between my legs and began sucking and licking on my vagina. For a very short time I enjoyed the sensation, the manner in which his tongue explored my vaginal lips and washed my clitoris; then conscience overcame pleasure and I forced him to stop. I never dated him again."

At age twenty, while in college, Mary met Raymond, the young man she would eventually marry a student of industrial engineering at a neighboring college. After almost a year of steady company, Raymond proposed and Mary accepted. During this ten and a half months of dating, their sexual activities consisted of mutual fondling, caresses and masturbation. After a time, Raymond proposed intercourse and, during one of their petting sessions, when both were very excited, tried to force penetration, stopping only when he became convinced that Mary meant what she so often said, that full intimate contact would cheapen their relationship and severely shake the foundations of their future marriage.

In her words: "I had been taught as a child that pre-marital sex was wrong, and although I love Raymond very much, I was determined to remain a virgin until marriage."

It was Raymond who introduced Mary again to cunnilingus-and fellatio-as a prelude to sexual intercourse, during their honeymoon. She did not consider these oral-genitals acts perverted. Preparatory to marriage, she had read a great many authoritative books on marriage that explained that oral acts were not obscene, if they, led to sexual union and if they were enjoyed by both man and wife, provided one partner did not force the act upon the other.

Mary enjoyed cunnilingus as performed by Raymond, his adeptness causing her to have numerous orgasms. ‘She had no moral nor religious scruples against either fellatio or cunnilingus, and her previous dislike of the acts lay not in any realm of ethics, but in the fact that the boy attempting the act was not her husband.

Mary did not dislike fellatio, either. She told this writer: "Raymond enjoyed it more than I, of course, as it was he on whom the majority of sensations rested. I did enjoy giving him pleasure in this manner-using my mouth and tongue-and after the first four or five times of sucking him, I began looking forward to it, I began enjoying sexually the very act itself. I delighted in licking his prick and letting his cock head slide in and out of my lips and mouth. I delighted in the fresh clean man-smell. I never swallowed his discharge, however. Raymond would come in' my mouth but I'd spit it out right away, then suck his cock as it wilted. We did graduate to doing sixty-nine-me on top. Raymond would even divide his time between sucking my pussy and licking my asshole, the latter of which I also enjoyed a treat deal. It made me come faster and more often. I saw nothing wrong in the act. We always bathed before having sex and we both enjoyed him doing this to me, although I could not bring myself to introduce my tongue to his asshole. Raymond did not press the issue. Like myself, he did not believe in making the partner do something distasteful.

"Raymond and I enjoyed sexual intercourse tremendously. We experimented with various positions and frankly, I enjoyed being fucked!"

Raymond graduated from college two months after he and Mary were married and obtained a good job with an engineering firm. He also became a reservist in the army. Fourteen months later Mary obtained her degree and began teaching third grade in an elementary school the following September.

Mary and Raymond were happy; he had a good job with a growing company, with ample opportunity for advancement; they had a nice four-room apartment and a German shepherd named Brute-and since they both worked, their income was more than sufficient.

Mary and Raymond wanted children. But Mary did not become pregnant. After four years the couple decided that Mary's barrenness might be a medical problem, and the family doctor was consulted. Tests were given. Mary was totally sterile-a revelation that left her ashamed and with a deep sense of inadequacy. The physician suggested adoption, and Mary and Raymond discussed this numerous times, discussions that led to shouting sessions and violent arguments, with Raymond, in the heat of anger, even accusing Mary of being "only half a woman." They always reconciled in bed and while Raymond always said he was sorry, he invariably returned to the subject of adoption. While understanding his need for a child, his need to be a father, Mary simply felt she had to be honest with him, and with herself, knowing full well that she could never adopt a child and love it as her own. It was not her nature. Nor could she understand how Raymond could expect such an impossibility of her, to love a stranger, a child whose ancestry was uncertain.

Their lives, like those of millions of United States citizens, were then disrupted by the police action half way around the world. Raymond was ordered to active duty and was sent overseas five months later. Within a year he was dead, killed instantly by a sniper's bullet. Mary was then twenty-nine years old.