uality, as out of heterosexuality-the problem somewhat changes in character. Society as we know it presents us with two opposed psychological conditions-homosexuality, and the reaction of revulsion against it: both deep-seated both doubtless of infantile origin; the two sometimes existing side by side in the same individual, and then leading to deep conflict and misery; but most often distributed across different people, and thus the cause of social stress and persecution.

For centuries society, under the influence of dogmatic or erroneous principles, has directed the full weight of its attention upon the homosexual, and has allowed the anti-homosexual to appear as the champion of virtue. I suggest that it is high time that the object of social attention was switched from the one element to the other. For, in the first place, it seems likely that the condition of anti-homosexuality is somewhat more remediable than that of homosexuality: and it is always the part of rationality, in any situation of conflict where moral considerations do not arise, to concentrate upon the factor that is more susceptible to our efforts. And secondly, there is, contrary to popular opinion, some reason for thinking that of the two opposed types the anti-homosexual is socially the more undesirable on account of the greater aggressive component overtly present in this personality.

It is, moreover, pleasant to think that in this new struggle it would not be the hideous weapons of punishment and persecution that were called for, but the amiable ones of education and argument. The foundations of intolerance may be deep, but its buttresses stand on the surface: and the most important of these is ignorance. Before we can even begin to talk in an enlightened fashion about sexual be-

one

havior, we need to shake ourselves out of the dogmatic ignorance in which we all lie concerning the habits. and practices of others in the world, of those around us, perhaps even of ourselves.

In this connection I cannot believe that the policy pursued in the best faith by Dr. Chesser of glossing over the sexual aspect of homosexuality is really the correct one. At one point, for instance, Dr. Chesser asserts that most homosexual relations do not extend beyond 'an affectionate relationship,' and at another point that the incidence of sodomy is possibly higher in hetero-sexual than in homosexual relations. I am doubtful if either of these propositions is true, and am quite certain that it is a mistake to say so unless one is certain that they are. For, in the first place, what we require of the anti-homosexual is that he should be able to master his fear of the subject, and excessive caution on the part of the reformer sets him neither a good nor an encouraging example. Secondly, as a few minutes' conversation with rabid anti-homosexuals so often brings out, much of the neurotic opposition to homosexuality relates to and is bound up with its anal aspects: for this opposition to work itself out, it is important not to deny these aspects.

The road to toleration lies ultimately through a recognition of complexity. We need first of all to see that homosexuality as it manifests itself can be broken down into a number of different components: a psychological condition, a choice of object, a variation in aim, certain accompanying neurotic or psychotic symptoms, perhaps some constitutional factors. And then we need to realise how some of these components can also be components in heterosexuality or in other sexual deviations that are less markedly the target of social disapproval.

26