are organized groups with publications catering to them. After going into some of the feather-ruffling criticism leveled at the Daughters of Bilitis by Ann Aldrich, author of We Walk Alone, and We, Too, Must Love, Masters makes his admiration for Miss Aldrich known in her dispute with the D.O.B. If he had read her works, which his inadequate bibliography lists, he might have seen that We Walk Alone contains ideas, concepts, factual material, and analyses not only lifted bodily from The Homosexual in America, but that she took entire paragraphs verbatim, changing he to she without stopping to alter a comma or a semi-colon!

or

No matter what differences may exist among the organized homosexual groups, they are united in affirming the right of anyone to be homosexual and to live his or her life in accordance with his or her sexuality, provided that no crimes are committed against person property and the ordinary proprieties of public decency are observed. So long as homosexuals do not permit their sexual pursuits to hinder their fulfilling the requirements of maintaining good citizenship and being good employees, there is no good reason for denying them equal rights with those of the heterosexual, including military service and government employment. Other considerations about the attitudes of heterosexuals toward granting these rights are irrelevant; it is a problem for them to reconsider their thinking regarding their homosexual brethren in the light of rational humanistic terms.

After expressing confusion over the various theories of the etiology and cure of homosexuality, and being unable to form any definite conclusions regarding the merits of any of them, Masters states the homosexual's case as if he knew for certain the views of a sufficiently representative sample of them regarding their condi-

tion. He ignores the fact that many homosexuals have become so adjusted to their status in society that social or legal change would make them uncomfortable. In assessing the future, he reveals his bias toward heterosexuality as a superior way of life probably because he is heterosexual and because he feels that "homosexuals are, however, not opposites who complement and fulfill one another." Nobody says they are, but it is a sexological error to say that male and female are opposites. They are different, and these differences can be either complementary and fulfilling or repulsive and frustrating, depending on the nature of the individuals and circumstances.

One of the techniques used by Masters is a subtle and hence invidious form of argumentum ad hominem. He ridicules people by the liberal use of adjectives that are totally irrelevant, but that suggest a nefarious characterization. Thus, he refers to Harold Call as "editor of Mattachine Review and one of the University of Missouri's more unique contributions to American journalism." We should certainly like to discover the product of that worthy journalism school that is not unique. If the author's technique were to be used by a reviewer of this work, he would refer to Mr. Masters as a self-styled writer who has given us alleged research in the form of what purports to be a book.

In the April, 1962 issue of the Mattachine Review, Masters wrote a special article commenting on his book and other projects. In it he says "This book was not should you be interested in such behind-the-scenes details-one that I ever intended to write. . . . I decided to write The Homosexual Revolution taking time off from what, to me, is more challenging work . . . . I have tried to avoid easy generalizations about the incidence or any other aspects of sexual inversion-even when those

9