with girls simply create more appetites without providing adequate means for satisfying them. In such situations, many of the most "normal" girl-oriented boys turn to other boys for sexual release. One scholar recently suggested that perhaps the only answer therefore was child marriage, which would allow a boy and girl to begin sexual relations within marriage whenever ready. But cultures where this has been tried have found this no solution either. Early satiated with "married" sex, the boy-husbands turn to extra-sexual experience, generally with boys, to meet a hunger for varied experience which early marriage sought to deny them.

Eglington, in Greek Love, has recently suggested that it would be normal for every young boy to have homosexual love affairs, as a stage to normal, mature adult sexuality. We would suggest that in fact, a majority of boys do indeed have such affairsif only passing, furtive, secret, and unadmitted. The question is: what is normal, mature sexual activity? Perhaps the Romans were right: marriage should be a covenant relationship for companionship and children, which would allow each partner the right to a rich and varied sexual experience with other persons. In such a "truly adult" society, (where persons would be mature enough to accept variety and not insist upon selfish, possessive monogamy), there would probably be a place for marriage between two men as well as between two women, or a woman and a man. And certainly sideline adventures with both men and women would be normal and expected. Both, indeed, are normal within most present western societies, but the establishment closes its eyes to frequent adultery and homosexual excursions by married men.

The fact is, therefore, that by its own definitions, the heterosexual establishment is already a minority-a

minority which successfully enforces its rules on the majority in order to keep up the population explosion, and to enforce an outmoded sexual legalism which is neither scientific, nor humane, nor enforceable.

The majority are heterosexual, if one accepts as heterosexual anyone who is capable of, or is having, satisfactory heterosexual relationships. At the same time, the majority is homosexual is one accepts as homosexual anyone who is capable of or who desires homosexual relationships. The difference? The law facilitates heterosexual relationships, and limits homosexual ones. Bigotry and inhumanity result from the oppression. Indeed, the price western society pays is tremendous: frustration, sadism, crime, mental illness, because males must sublimate the normal emotions they feel for one another. Each man develops secret inferiority feelings because of his homosexual impulses, because he assumes that other "normal" men do not have such impulses. Out of these feelings is born the establishment which enforces the laws. No one is so much for the prohibition of liquor as the man who is tempted to drink but feels it wrong; no one supports the heterosexual establishment SO much as the man who is married and feels his homosexual impulses to be wrong.

The result: both heterosexuals and homosexuals are oppressed by the way a heterosexual minority (a minority at least who live up to the definition) controls the establishment. The entire civil rights picture would change if the law were amended in the United States to say that every person with some white blood is white. And how the emotional climate would change if the law admitted that every person with homosexual desires is homosexual!

If a homosexual majority took control of the establishment, how would society be different?

9