¹ Knodel, John, The Decline of Fertility in Germany, 1871–1939 (Princeton, 1974), pp. 246–47.Google Scholar

² Neuman, R. P., ‘German Workers' Autobiographies as Social Historical Sources,’ Newsletter. European Labor and Working Class History, 7 (05 1975), 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Marcuse, Max, ‘Zur Frage der Verbreitung und Methodik der wilkürlichen Geburten-beschränkung in Berliner Proletarierkreisen,’ Sexual-Probleme, 9 (1913), 752–80;Google ScholarPolano, O., ‘Beitrag zur Frage der Geburtenbeschränkung,’ Zeitschrift fur Geburtshilfe und Gynakologie, 79 (1916), 567–78;Google ScholarMarcuse, Max, Der eheliche Präventivverkehr, seine Verbreitung, Verursachung und Methodik. Dargestellt und beleuchtet an 300 Ehen (Stuttgart, 1917).Google Scholar Also see Marcuse, Max, Wandlungen des Fortpflanzungs-Gedankens und-Willens [Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Sexualforschung. Band 1, Heft 1] (Bonn, 1918).Google Scholar

⁴ Lee Rainwater, , And the Poor Get Children. Sex, Contraception, and Family Planning in the Working Class (Chicago, 1960),Google Scholar uses a total of 96 men and women. The same author's Family Design. Sexuality, Marital, Family Size, and Contraception (Chicago, 1965),Google Scholar a total of 409 people.

⁵ Knodel, , Decline in Fertility, p. 147.Google Scholar Also Hamburger, Carl, Ueber den Zusammenhang zwischen Konzeptionsziffer und Kindersterblichkeit in (grosstädtischen)Google ScholarArbeiterkreisen [Sonderabdruck aus der Zeitschrift für Soziale Medizin. 3 Band] (Leipzig, 1908).

⁶ Linse, Ulrich, ‘Arbeiterschaft und Geburtenentwicklung im Deutschen Kaiserreich von 1871,’ Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 12 (1972), 214–16;Google ScholarKresse, Oskar, Der Geburtenrückgang in Deutschland (Berlin, 1912);Google ScholarSilbergleit, H., ‘Der Geburtenrückgang in Berlin,’ in Statistische-samt Gross-Berlin, Statistischen Monatsberichte, 3 (1912), 7–12Google Scholar; Blaschko, A., ‘Neuer Literatur über den Geburtenrückgang,’ Zeitschrift für Bekämpfung der Geschlechtskrankheiten, 14 (1912–1913), 438–55;Google ScholarTheilhaber, Felix, Das Sterile Berlin (Berlin, 1913)Google Scholar; Rohleder, Hermann, ‘Der Geburtenrückgang—eine Kulturfrage,’ Berliner Klinik, Heft 297 (03 1913), 1–35Google Scholar; Borntraeger, J., Der Geburtenrückgang in Deutschland (Würzburg, 1913)Google Scholar; Seeberg, Reinhold, Der Geburtenrückgang in Deutschland (Leipzig, 1913);Google ScholarRoesle, E., Der Geburtenrückgang. Seine Literatur und die Methodik seiner Ausmassbestimmung [Ergänzungshefte zu dem Archiv für Soziale Hygiene und Demographie. Ergänzungsheft Nr. 1] (Leipzig, 1914);Google Scholarvon Gruber, Max, Ursachen und Bekämpfung des Geburtenrückgangs im Deutschen Reich. 3 ed. (Munich, 1914)Google Scholar; Hirsch, Max, Fruchtabtreibung und Präventivverkehr im Zusammenhang mit dem Geburtenrückgang (Würzburg, 1914).Google Scholar Concern about the fertility decline was not limited to Germany. See Bertillon, Jacques, La Dépopulation de la France (Paris, 1911)Google Scholar; Gordon, Linda, Woman's Body, Woman's Right. A Social History of Birth Control in America (New York, 1976), pp. 136–58.Google Scholar

⁷ Grotjahn, Alfred, Geburten-Rückgang und Geburten-Regelung im Lichte der individuellen und der sozialen Hygiene (Berlin, 1914), p. 327Google Scholar; Grotjahn, Alfred, Erlebtes und Erstrebtes. Erinnerungen eines sozialistischen Arztes (Berlin, 1932), p. 192.Google Scholar

⁸ Rost, Hans, Geburtenrückgang und Konfession (Cologne, 1913), p. 65Google Scholar; Blaschko, A., ‘Geburtenrückgang und Geschlechtskrankheiten,’ Zeitschrift für Bekämpfung der Geschlechtskrankheiten, 14 (1912–1913), 410.Google Scholar

⁹ Wolf, Julius, Der Geburtenrückgang. Der Rationalisierung des Sexuallebens in unserer Zeit (Jena, 1912), p. 150.Google Scholar Also Seeberg, , Geburtenrückgang, pp. 32–34, 39.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Wolf, J., Die Volkswirtschaft der Gegenwart undZukunft (Leipzig, 1912), p. 297.Google Scholar Wolfgang Köllmann cites Wolf to support his contention that socialist propaganda was influential in the decline of working class fertility in ‘The Population of Germany in the Age of Industrialism,’ in Moller, Herbert, ed., Population Movements in Modern European History (New York, 1964), p. 106.Google Scholar

¹¹ Neuman, R. P., ‘The Sexual Question and Social Democracy in Imperial Germany,’ Journal of Social History, 7 (1973–1974), 277–81.Google Scholar Also see Wingen, Oscar, Die Bevölkerungstheorien der letzten Jahre. Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Geburtenrückganges [Muenchener Volkswirtschaftliche Studien. 136] (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1915), pp. 145–54.Google Scholar

¹² Linse, , ‘Arbeiterschaft und Geburtenentwicklung,’ pp. 238–56.Google Scholar

¹³ For Bernstein's views see, Bernstein, Alfred, Wie fördern wir den kulturellen Riickgang der Geburten? Ein Mahnruf an das arbeitende Volk (Berlin, 1913).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Lewinsohn, Richard, ‘Die Stellung der deutschen Sozialdemokratie zur Bevölkerungsfrage,’ Schmollers Jahrbuch, 46 (1922), 841Google Scholar; Nemitz, Kurt, ‘Julius Moses und der Gebärs-treik-Debatte 1913,’ Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Geschichte, 2 (1973), 327.Google Scholar In print, Zetkin thought that birth control was one way the middle class hid adultery, and also of ‘egoistically avoiding the care and responsibility of a child.’ ‘Gebärzwang und Gebärstreik,’ Die Gleichheit, 24 (13 03 1914), 257.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Nemitz, , ‘Julius Moses,’ p. 327.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 328; Lewinsohn, , ‘Die Stellung,’ p. 842.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Nemitz, , ‘Julius Moses,’ pp. 328–29.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Kautsky, Karl, ‘Der Gebärstreik,’ Neue Zeit, 31 (1912–1913), 904–09;Google ScholarBernstein, Eduard, ‘Geburtenrückgang, Nationalität und Kultur,’ Sozialistische Monatsheft, 19–3 (1913), 1492–99.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Nemitz, , ‘Julius Moses,’ pp. 334–35.Google Scholar

²⁰ Neuman, , ‘Sexual Question,’ pp. 277–81.Google Scholar Some idea of the priority given to birth control propaganda by the SPD can be gained from the following figures: in 1906 the party distributed 9,600 copies of a short pamphlet by Zadek, Ignaz, Frauenleiden und deren Verhütung (Berlin, 1906)Google Scholar containing some information on birth control when indicated for ‘reasons of health.’ In the same year the SPD distributed 100,000 free copies of ‘Der Kampf um die Unfallrente,’ and 800,000 election pamphlets. See Protokoll des Sozial Demokratischen Parteitags zu Essen, 15–21. 09, 1907 (Berlin, 1907), p. 111.Google Scholar

²¹ See Fraenkel, Ludwig, Die Empfängnisverh¨tung, biologische Grundlagen, Technik und Indikationen (Stuttgart, 1932);Google ScholarHimes, Norman, Medical History of Contraception (New York: Schocken Books, 1970, Orig. pub. 1936)Google Scholar; Tietze, Christopher, ‘History of Contraceptive Techniques,’ Journal of Sex Research, 1 (1965), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Tietze, , ‘Contraceptive Techniques,’ p. 75.Google Scholar

²³ Capellmann, C. F., Fakultative Sterilität ohne Verletzung der Sittengesetze (Aachen, 1887), p. 16.Google ScholarRohleder, Hermann, Vorlesungen über Geschlechtstrieb und gesamtes Geschlechtsleben des Menschen, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1907) I: 393–408.Google Scholar

²⁴ Wagner, C., ed., Die geschlechtlich-sittlichen Verhältnisse der evangelische Landbewohner im deutschen Reiche [Allgemeinen Konferenz der deutschen Sittlichkeitsvereine] (Leipzig, 1895–1896), I: 17, 43, 174–75.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ferdy, Hans (Pseudonym of A. Meyerhof), Sittliche Selbstbeschränkung (Hildesheim, 1904), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar The same author, in Die Mittel zur Verhütung der Conception, 8th ed. (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 60–61,Google Scholar reprints the following traditional Austrian folk verses:

Rosmarin und Thymian Guten Tag, Herr Gartnersmann;

Wächst in unseren Garten. Haben Sie Lavendel,

Jungfer Aennchen ist die Braut Rosmarin und Thymian

Kann nicht länger warten. Und ein wenig Quendel?

Rother Wein und weissen Wein; Ja, Madam! Das haben wir

Morgen soil die Hochzeit sein. Draussen in dem Garten.

Rosemary, thyme, lavender, and other garden herbs had long been associated with sexuality and marriage. See Weber-Kellermann, Ingeborg, Die deutsche Familie. Versuch einer Sozialgeschichte (Frankfurt am Main, 1974), pp. 170–72.Google Scholar

²⁶ Already in the late eighteenth century, clergymen in Erfurt complained about the ‘two-child system’ among the local peasantry. Möller, Helmut, Die kleinb¨rgerliche Familie im 18.Google ScholarJahrhundert. Verhallen und Gruppenkultur (Berlin, 1969), p. 31n.Google Scholar For birth control among the rural population of the 1890s see Wagner, C., Die Sittlichkeit aufdem Lande (Leipzig, 1895), pp. 89–96,Google Scholar and the review of this book by Bebel, August in Neue Zeit, 12: 2 (1894–1895): 594–99;Google ScholarGebhardt, Hermann, Zur bäuerlichen Glaubens- und Sittenlehre von einem Thuringischen Landpfarrer. 3rd ed. (Gotha, 1895), pp. 124–25;Google ScholarTugendreich, Gustav, ‘Ueber den Einfluss des Stillens auf die Empfängnis,’ Sexual-Probleme, 4 (1908): 459–64.Google Scholar

²⁷ Neustätter, Otto, ‘Die öffentliche Ankündigung der Schutzmittel,’ Zeitschrift für Bekämpfung der Geschlechtskrankheiten, 4 (1905): 203–52.Google Scholar Even against a Social Democratic newspaper advertising a ‘Präservative’ and ‘Frauenschutzmittel,’ Stuttgart prosecutors failed to prove their case in 1900. See Ferdy, , Sittliche Selbstbeschränkung, pp. 57–58.Google Scholar On the general problem of the transmission of birth control information see Sutter, Jean, ‘Sur la diffusion des methodes contraceptives,’ in Bergues, Helene, ed., La prevention des naissances dans la familie. Ses origines dans les temps modernes [INED Travaux et Documents. Cahier No. 35] (Paris, 1960), pp. 341–59.Google Scholar

²⁸ Marcuse, , Eheliche Präoentivverkehr, pp. 31–32.Google Scholar

²⁹ Gebhardt, , Bäuerlichen Glaubens- und Sittenlehre, pp. 124–25;Google ScholarPolano, , ‘Beitrag zur Frage,’ p. 569.Google Scholar

³⁰ Grotjahn, , Geburten-Rückgang, p. 242.Google Scholar

³¹ Borntraeger, , Der Geburtenrückgang, pp. 47–54.Google Scholar

³² See, for example, Brubpacher, Fritz, Kindersegen—und kein Ende? (Munich, 1904);Google ScholarFerch, Johann, Liebe und Ehe in der arbeitenden Klasse (Oranienburg, ca. 1914), pp. 76–83.Google Scholar

³³ Bromme, Moritz, Lebensgeschichte eines modernen Fabrikarbeiters (Jena, 1905), pp. 224–25.Google Scholar

³⁴ Marcuse, , Eheliche Präventivverkehr, # 119, p. 52.Google Scholar On midwives and abortion see Marcuse, , ’Zur Frage,’ pp. 761, 763, 771.Google Scholar

³⁵ Marcuse, , ‘Zur Frage,’ p. 767.Google Scholar

³⁶ Polano, , ‘Beitrag zur Frage,’ p. 572.37Google ScholarMarcuse, , ‘Zur Frage,’ p. 754.Google Scholar

³⁸ Marcuse, , Eheliche Präventivverkehr, #213, p. 80, #134, p. 57.Google Scholar

³⁹ Marcuse, , ‘Zur Frage,’ pp. 754–55.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Marcuse, , Eheliche Präventivverkehr, #88, p. 40.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ferdy, , Die Mittel zur Verhütung, p. 85Google Scholar; Hirschberg, E., Die soziale Lage der arbeitenden Klassen in Berlin (Berlin, 1897), p. 230.Google Scholar

⁴² Ferdy, , Die Mittel zur Verhütung, p. 91, n. 2Google Scholar; Borntraeger, , Der Geburtenrückgang, p. 57;Google Scholar‘Verus,’ Die moderne Kinderbeschränkung. Eine soziale Studie (Vienna, 1910), p. 29.Google Scholar

⁴³ Marcuse, , Eheliche Präventivverkehr, #39, pp. 28–29Google Scholar; and Marcuse, Max, Die sexulogische Bedeutung der Zeugungs- und Empfängnisverhütung im der Ehe (Stuttgart, 1919), p. 24.Google Scholar Also see the following essay, first published in Germany in 1882, W. P. J. Mensinga (pseudonym for C. Hasse), ‘On Facultative Sterility Viewed from the Prophylactic and Hygienic Point of View for General Practitioners,’ in Langley, L. L., ed., Contraception (Stroudsburg, Pa., 1973), pp. 246–64;Google ScholarSjövall, Elisabet, ‘Coitus Interruptus,’ in Calderone, Mary, ed., Manual of Contraceptive Practice (Baltimore, 1964), pp. 13–17.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Hirschberg, , Die soziale Lage, pp. 33–34Google Scholar; Berthold, G., ‘Die WohnverhSltnisse in Berlin, insbesondere die der ärmeren Klassen,’ Schriften dem Verein für Sozialpolitik, 31 (1886): 206Google Scholar; Mulert, Oskar, Vierundzwanzig ostpreussische Arbeiter und Arbeiterfamilien (Jena, 1908), p. 124Google Scholar; Chajes, Benno, ‘Die Ehe des Proletaries,’ Sexual-Probleme, 4 (1908): 527Google Scholar; Hofmann, Ernst, ‘Volkskundliche Betrachtungen zur proletarischen Familie in Chemnitz um 1900,’ Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universitat zur Berlin, Ges.-Sprachw. Reihe, 20 (1971): 70.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Kinsey, Alfred et al. , Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia, 1948), pp. 327–93;Google ScholarRainwater, Lee, ‘Some Aspects of Lower Class Sexual Behavior,’ Journal of Social Issues, 22 (1966): 96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reiche, Reimut, Sexuality and Class Struggle (London, 1970), pp. 57–58.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Polano, , ‘Beitrag zur Frage,’ p. 576.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Marcuse, , ‘Zur Frage,’ pp. 774–75.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Wagner, , Geschlechtlich-sittlichen Verhältnisse, II: 369n.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Marcuse, , ‘Zur Frage,’ p. 760.Google Scholar For the names of various commercial ‘period remedies’ see Hirsch, , Fruchtabtreibung, p. 122n.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ferdy, Hans, ‘Der Cöcal-Condus als Proletarier-Behelf,’ Sexual-Probleme, 4 (1904): 786.Google Scholar In 1905 a French survey of contraception in rural areas recorded a number of colorful expressions for coitus interruptus also derived from daily life: ‘Battre en grange et vanner à laporte.’ ‘Faire comme le meunier: dècharger sa charette à la porte du moulin.’ See Stengers, J., ‘Les pratiques anticonceptionelles dans le mariage au XIXe et au XXe siècle: problèmes humains et attitudes religieuses,’ Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire, 49 (1971): 480.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Bromme, , Lebensgeschichte, p. 225.Google Scholar

⁵² Marcuse, , ‘Zur Frage,’ p. 768.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., p. 758.

⁵⁴ See fn. 38.

⁵⁵ Marcuse, , ‘Zur Frage,’ p. 765.Google Scholar Fear of venereal infection also complicated working class sexual relations. See Levenstein, Adolf, Die Arbeiterfrage (Munich, 1912), p. 244.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Rainwater, , And the Poor Get Children, p. 52.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ibid. Also see Eugene Sandberg and Jacobs, R. I., ‘Psychology of the Misuse and Rejection of Contraception,’ American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 110 (1971): 227–42,Google Scholar and Fawcett, J. T. and Bornstein, M. H., ‘Modernization, Individual Morality, and Fertility,’ in Fawcett, James, ed., Psychological Perspectives on Population (NewYork, 1973), pp. 106–31.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Banks, J. A., Prosperity and Parenthood. A Study of Family Planning among the Victorian Middle Classes (London, 1954), pp. 197–207.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Hohorst, G., Kocka, J. and Ritter, G., Sozialgeschichtliches Arbeitsbuch. Materialien zur Statistik des Kaiserreichs 1860–1914 (Munich, 1975), pp. 94–124.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Freudenthal, August, ‘Die Ursachen des Geburtenrückgangs vor dem Kriege,’ Neue Zeit, 33 (1917): 454–55.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Beshers, James, Population Processes in Social Systems (New York, 1967), pp. 85–88.Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid., p. 86.

⁶³ Marcuse, , Eheliche Präventivverkehr, #241, p. 89.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ibid., #34, p. 27. Also #70, pp. 37–38.

⁶⁵ Ibid., #38, p. 28.

⁶⁶ Ibid., #81, p. 41.

⁶⁷ Ibid., #288, p. 102. Also #148, p. 61, and #298, p. 105.

⁶⁸ Polano, , ‘Beitrag zur Frage,’ pp. 576–77.Google Scholar Among the women birth controllers interviewed by Polano, some of the reasons for birth control were ‘social circumstances—high prices, low pay, unemployment’ (45 percent); ‘fear of birth, weakness and illness’ (28 percent); ‘desire to space births’ (7 percent); ‘miscellaneous’ (1.5 percent).

⁶⁹ Marcuse, , Eheliche Präventivverkehr, #28, p. 25.Google Scholar Railroad worker age 27, Mecklenburg, married four years, one living child, uses coitus interruptus (hereafter cited CI) plus douche.

⁷⁰ Ibid., #274, p. 98. Factory worker, age 27, Westphalia, married four years, one living child, two dead children, CI and douche.

⁷¹ Ibid., #54, p. 33. Painter's helper, age 24, SW Germany, married five years, three living children, one stillbirth, CI, sponge, douche, condom.

⁷² Ibid., #95, p. 45. Mason, age 25, Hesse, married one year after six years' premarital intercourse with present wife, one living child, CI.

⁷³ Ibid., #108, p. 49. Harbor worker, age 27, Hansa town, married four years, 1 living child, one miscarriage, CI, sometimes condom.

⁷⁴ Ibid., #154, p. 63.

⁷⁵ Ibid., #18, p. 22, CI and diaphragm for past year.

⁷⁶ Gebhardt, , Zur bäuerlichen Glaubens-und-Sittenlehre, p. 124.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Marcuse, , Eheliche Präventivverkehr, #31, p. 26.Google Scholar Waiter, age 37, Hansa city, married eleven years, CI. In Chemnitz around 1900, 80 percent of working class families had fewer than five children. Hofmann, , ‘Volkskundliche Betrachtungen,’ p. 77.Google Scholar For more about large families going out of fashion among workers see A.B. in Charlottenburg, ‘Zur Frage des Geburtenrückgangs. Eine Selbsbiographie,’ Soziale Kultur, 36 (1916): 681–97.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Marcuse, , Eheliche Präventivverkehr, #36, pp. 27–28.Google Scholar Mechanic, age 32, Hesse, married eight years. Also see #207, pp. 78–79.

⁷⁹ Ibid., #139, p. 58.

⁸⁰ Ibid., #119, p. 52. Driver, age 38, Westphalia, married 17 years, 3 living children, two dead, two abortions, CI or nothing.

⁸¹ Ibid., #85, p. 42. Mechanic, age 39, Saxony, married 15 years, CI and douche.

⁸² Ibid., #9, pp. 19–20. Lathe operator, age 33, Hansa City, one living child, 1 abortion, CI, douche, later diaphragm.

⁸³ Ibid., #40, p. 29. Wagon builder, age 25, Berlin, married 1½ years, condom.

⁸⁴ Ibid., #22, p. 23. Mechanic, age 27, Prussia, married five years, no children, contraceptive techniques: ‘plenty of ways.’

⁸⁵ Ibid., #299, p. 105. Master painter, age 40, Berlin, married nine years, one child, vaginal suppositories.

⁸⁶ Ibid., #251, pp. 91–92. Carpet-maker, age 30, Berlin, married six months, l½ years premarital intercourse with wife, no children, CI, douche.

⁸⁷ Ibid., #64, p. 36. Master mechanic, age 32, Berlin, married five years, one child, wife uses unknown contraceptive technique.

⁸⁸ Ibid., #100, p. 46. Stucco worker, age 29, Berlin, married one year, no children, no contraception.

⁸⁹ Ibid., #115, p. 51. Wagon builder, age 37, Berlin, married twelve years, two children, condom, tampon.

⁹⁰ Ibid., #223, p. 83. Warehouse foreman, age 32, Berlin, married four years, no children, CI.

⁹¹ Ibid., #60, pp. 34–35. Shoemaker, age 26, Brandenburg, married two years, no children, CI.

⁹² Ibid., # 175, p. 69. Mechanic, age 29, Berlin, married two years, two children, oldest born before marriage, condom. These examples support the thesis ‘the greater the individualism, the less the familism.’ Scanzoni, John, Sex Roles, Life Styles and Childbearing (New York, 1975), p. 187.Google Scholar

⁹³ A 69-year-old Prussian working class woman interpreted the difference between rich and poor in terms of family size. ‘The reason the rich have grounds for being arrogant and the poor have to spread their butter thin is because the rich have few, the poor many children.’ Moszeik, C., ed., Aus der Gedankenwelt einer Arbeiterfrau. Von ihr selbst erzählt (Berlin, 1909), p. 2.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Linse, , ‘Arbeiterschaft und Geburtenentwicklung,’ p. 249,Google Scholar suggests that the SPD regarded birth control as a ‘private matter’ to be decided by the individual worker, but I think that the party leadership was often not only indifferent to the matter, but actually hostile to birth control, and thus hindered the spread of more dependable contraceptive practices among their constituents. Neuman, , ‘The Sexual Question,’ pp. 271–86.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Wettstein-Adelt, Minna, 3 1/2 Monate Fabrikarbeitetin (Berlin, 1893), pp. 45–46, 71–72.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ In his studies of working class sexual attitudes in America during the 1950s and 1960s Rainwater found a high degree of role splitting between working class husbands and wives that extended to their sexual relations, reducing the latter to ungratifying ‘functions’ among the majority interviewed. The studies described in Schmidt, Gunter and Sigusch, Volkmar, ‘Lower-Class Sexuality: Some Emotional and Social Aspects of West German Males and Females,’ Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1 (1971), 29–44,Google Scholar indicate that unlike Rainwater's subjects, young German workers do not de-emotionalize sexual relations, but rather see them as mutual gratifying sources of pleasure. However, the two studies are not contradictory. Rainwater's study was based on married couples, aged 30 or older, drawn from a class of unskilled, often unemployed workers. Sigusch and Schmidt studied mainly unmarried, regularly employed workers aged 21 or younger. They speculate that if a slightly older group of less well-off German workers were studied, the same role-splitting and sex-negativism Rainwater describes might also be found in West Germany. See Schmidt, Gunter and Sigusch, Volkmar, Arbeiter-Sexualität. Eine empirische Untersuchung an jungen Industriearbeitern (Neuwied-Berlin, 1971), pp. 133–38.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Marcuse, , ‘Zur Frage,’ p. 773.Google Scholar