injustices of the general society. The sociological focus remains superficial, however, and there is little insightful analysis of the relationships among these aspects of the homosexual's society. Furthermore, the authors sometimes write as if the homosexual were completely separated from the larger society. For instance, they severely berate homosexuals who "copy heterosexual patterns," without recognizing that homosexuals who aspire to a monogamous life of faithfulness, integrity, and fidelity have incorporated values of their own larger society, not merely copied them from the heterosexual members of that society. Similarly, Cory and LeRoy state that most members of homophile organizations are from "middle-class backgrounds and incorporate middle-class values and ethics into their organization. . . . In order to win acceptance among middle-class heterosexuals, they must be as much like them as possible. . . . The members act more like middleclass people than they do like homosexuals. ." Of course they do; they are middle-class people (or lower or upper) who happen also to be homosexual.

For a work claiming sociological focus, there is little recognition of cultural influences other than contemporary American. The appearance of a "new" homosexual "stereotype" is described, the muscle builder, athlete, or super-male. Though such homosexuals exist, they constitute anything but a stereotype. The authors apparently see no continuity between such manifestations and the ancient Greek ideal of physical perfection; the motorcycle cult may be

new variation, but emphasis on masculine perfection is a recurring phenomenon.

An example of the artificial sociological analysis to which the authors are all too prone is their in-

one

terpretation of "camping" as symbolic representation of group belonging, a recognition that they are among their own, and that they are expressing common goals, interests, and values." However, a worthwhile suggestion is made that factors involved in the attitudes of heterosexuals toward homosexuality should be studied.

Their "psychological" approach is even more regrettable because it contains much jargon with a superficial ring of authority which may be accepted uncritically by the uninformed reader. The book offers nothing new regarding psychological aspects of homosexuality, but is replete with technical terms carelessly and inaccurately used, at times grossly so. For example, they say: "To be exclusively oriented in one direction to the total neglect of the other seems to be irrationally biased and perhaps even neurotically compulsive. To be exclusively homosexual without ever having known the felicities of heterosexual love must be some sort of compulsive fixation, perhaps fetichistic. . . ." That is nonsense. With almost no exceptions their explanations are olib, superficial, and without supporting evidence, and while similar criticisms can be made of much profesional literature as well, that does not justify it here. Furthermore, they have explanations for virtually everything. given in absolutes and finalities. without adequate qualification or reservation.

The authors laud the ideal of research for other people-and, for example, outline in great detail the conditions presumed necessary to investigate a possible relationship between homosexuality and creativity. At the same time they themselves do not hesitate to draw conclusions on far more important questions without specifying any of the conditions under which supporting observations