matters, can best be judged against the background of Dr. Marmor's remarks, above quoted.

The text begins with the biological survey, under the headings of "Ambisexuality in Animals" (DENNISTON), "Hormones and Homosexuality" (PERLOFF), and "Etiology of Homosexuality; Genetic and Chromosomal Aspects" (PARE). These studies reflect the fact that modern biological sciences have become highly refined and sophisticated, so that little is left of the conjectures and presuppositions of a century ago. This is especially especially

true of the three branches of research represented here, in which almost every new finding has helped to demolish the old myth that sexual orientation and behavior (psychosexuality) had some necessary, or "natural" organic basis. Today, as these articles indicate, the relations of genetic and hormonal factors to organic sexual characteristics and functioning is well-determined empirically, and it is equally welldetermined that none of these biological factors determine psychosexual development. As expressed unequivocally by PERLOFF, "genetic factors exert no influence upon the choice of the sex object. Hormones, similarly, do not influence the choice of the object of affection." The zoological evidence is thereby indirectly supported, since to establish that genetic or endocrine factors do not influence psychosexual development and the resulting orientations simply indicates that psychological factors interact freely and independently to produce a variety of natural gender-identifications and behaviorisms. The notion that any single resultant can be a "perversion" of some "natural" sexual "instinct" is thus rendered wholly untenable.

The sociological survey follows the biological, and is carried out under the following headings; — "Male Homosexuals and Their 'Worlds" (HOOK-

8

ER), "Anthropological and Cross-Cultural Aspects of Homosexuality" (OPLER), "Legal and Moral Aspects of Homosexuality" (SZASZ), "Historical and Mythological Aspects of Homosexuality" (TAYLOR), and "Male Homosexuality and the Role of Woman in Ancient Greece" (FISHER).

In view of Sexual Inversion's subtitle, "The Multiple Roots of Homosexuality," it is something of an editorial mystery how the HOOKER article found its way into this collection at all. She has written a very lively and competent dissertation on the general social milieuthe customs and the institutions (gay bars, etc.) of adult homosexuals. But such social habits and institutions are obviously the result, not the cause, of overt homophile interests; thus, disappointingly, this article contributes nothing whatsoever to an understanding of the roots of homophilia. Moreover, being committed to the usual "out-group" prejudices, HOOKER grossly overemphasizes the crude, sexual aspects of homophile orientation, and virtually ignores its romantic and comradely aspects that is, the subjective aspects which the homophile shares equally with the heterophile-which are definitely not demonstrated on street-corners, or in bars or public toilets.

In the anthropological and crosscultural examination OPLER points out, among other things (and merely confirming a view long held at ONE), that the classic Freudian theory of homosexuality by no means rests upon some absolute psychological principle but is simply a reflection of the patriarchal, bourgeois European mores of his period, and their effect on children growing up under the resulting sociosexual code. Due credit is given Freud, however, for establishing the vitally important general principle "that biological functioning in humans is subject to profound social and cultural inhibitions and that, in this sense, psychological factors have primacy and