Great as it is as a philosophical defense of homosexuality, this is not nor does it seek to be a description of the life, problems and fundamental dilemmas besetting the sexual deviate in our society. As a matter of fact, the one area in which the homosexuals had depicted just this was in fiction, and the body of literature did add up to a composite picture of the man (or woman) and the problem. But fiction has limitations which are not imposed on exposition, and I was convinced that the gap had not been filled, and that it must be if enlightenment were

to come.

In the years that I was preparing this work, mulling over it, writing it mentally, waiting for the propitious moment to start reducing it to paper, I became more and more struck by the remarkable analogy between the position of the homosexual in our socity and that of the usually-defined minority groups. Although the term "minority group" had hitherto been confined almost exclusively to racial, religious and other ethnic collectivities, it was evident to me that the homosexual also constituted a minority. As I studied the literature of the ethnic minorities, the Negro, the Jew, the American Indian, I saw inescapable similarities, which became the major theme and, in my own estimation, the main thesis of The Homosexual in America. It was this aspect of the book which attracted the greatest attention from reviewers, many of whom were shocked at the concept that the sexual deviate could be a minority group, and some of whom (although otherwise favorable to my work) found it necessary to reject this. A dozen years later, I can only repeat what I said at the ONE convention not quite two years ago; namely, that in 1951, I felt that homosexuality could not be understood except within the framework of minority-majority group relations in the U.S.A.; today this would be an understatement: one

would have to assert that minoritymajority group relations in the U.S.Á. cannot be understood without a grasp of the dynamics of homosexuality.

In 1951 the book appeared; it has gone into many editions, reprinted several times, is in paperback; it was translated into French and Spanish, and was the top nonfiction best-seller in Mexico for almost a year; and was published in England. It served as a model without credit or permission, I might add-for several other books; one author, in fact, copied entire paragraphs and pages, only taking the trouble to change "he" to "she" and "him" to "her," but not taking the trouble to understand the complexity of the message and the theme.

And now, 1963, and I have decided on a new statement as well as a restatement. Why? First, because so much new has happened in this area that requires review and analysis. Second, because so many authors have come upon the scene, with works superficial or misleading. Third, because I have had a dozen years of unique experience, in discussing my views, in hearing them discussed (often in my presence, by people who did not know I was the author), and in meeting many individuals and making numerous observations that have given me an opportunity to revise, re-evaluate, or reaffirm my previous positions. And fourth, because I found myself in a series of discussions, in a dynamic dialogue, with a young man, and I became aware that I was no longer viewing the new homosexual scene from within, that I was homosexual but nonetheless outsider, because I was not of the generation that grew up after Kinsey (and Cory), the peeroriented and other-directed youths who came into the world about the time of Pearl Harbor, or not long before, and who were participants in rather than observers of the changing homosexual scene in this country. It was this meeting with John P. LeRoy,