It is more than a supposition that "the dissimulant," the one who chooses to fly apart from his group, unless he is an extremely integrated personality, lives under the stress of great inner tensions, because of the position he has chosen, but which he often maintains only with the greatest effort. This fact is established every time we meet a dissimulant, whose burden has become too heavy for him to bear, and who either reveals himself to a confidante, or collides with the law under tragic circumstances.

It appears to me that the often-expressed opinion that the homophile is more intelligent than the heterophile is partly based upon the achievements of certain dissimulants. Whether the average intellectual capacity of the homophile is indeed larger, in my opinion would be difficult to prove, if only because, in the present crisis of psychology, it becomes almost impossible to define what really should be understood by "intellectual capacity."

The non-dissimulant part of the minority generally determines its attitude toward the dissimulant in a rather complicated manner, varying from casting him out as a "traitor," to showing a certain degree of understanding. If he performs achievements of outstanding importance, this may rise to respect, and we may presume a certain group-pride, because "one of us" is putting society under great obligation.

Yet, in my opinion, this does not apply in cases where the dissimulant goes so far as to completely deny the group to which he belongs, either in developing aggressive contempt, or more indirectly by concluding a marriage, with the aim of being accepted as a heterophile.

Those (the non-dissimulants), who, of their own free will and knowing the consequences, commit themselves openly to the homophile group, having deliberately taken such a far-reaching decision, thereby may be assumed to possess a more mature personality. Even then, however, there are differentiating factors. For instance, a man whose financial position is unassailable will make such a decision more easily than he who hazards serious social troubles. In such cases the decision may require a degree of mature, stable courage and deep conviction as will be found with only a few, be they homophile or heterophile.

These may represent a very important positive value for the group, as they, for the sake of conscience and with inward serenity, shoulder difficult conditions as they present themselves. One sometimes gets the impression that these individuals besides possessing serenity, patience, helpfulness and true love for their fellowhomophiles, are able also to have a comprehension of the nature and origin of the often appallingly unfair judgments and condemnations generally prevailing in the circles of the majority.

I suppose they realize, more than their comrades, how such attitudes are built up of a very complex set of factors, among which conscious malignity plays a less important part than is often presumed, whereas what is really present is usually stupidity, obtuse ignorance, lovelessness, and above all attitudes in man about which we know more today than we did at the beginning of the century. It is the well balanced homophile, living his often very difficult life, who can afford broadness of vision, precisely because he has made his deliberate final choice and knows where he stands.

One cannot escape the impression that the stronger homophiles, who are conscious of their self-reliance and responsibilities, need even more patience and humanity in dealing with some of their own group, than with members of the majority. As we have already seen, an extremely heavy task is resting on their

one

12