twosomes, in which they have actively no part.

One might note an odd naivete in the following passage, which might serve to make one as sympathetic with the problems of such social scientists, as one is sympathetic to those few "experienced, articulate and perceptive women" who took their chances of reprisal in baring their private resources to the interviewers.

"Legitimate programs which are functionally equivalent to Homosexuality must be substituted." We shall certainly watch the "functionally equivalent" programs with in-

terest.

But perhaps I have failed to take into account the purpose of the study, and whether or not that purpose has been served.

One will find the avowed purpose in sentence 1, Preface:

"This study began with our interest in gathering data on women in prison to see whether there were similar prisoner types consistent with the reported characteristics of male prisoners."

This seems a worthy endeavor (as all curiosity and longing for knowledge is), though perhaps somewhat hollow to the Lesbian ear, and I will spare the reader of this review certain passages in which women prisoners compared rather unfavorably with male prisoners in criminal versatility, etc., as no woman, even in this advanced era, can truly expect to attain to that absolute equality for which she once strove, and has very likely begun to doubt whether she any longer seriously entertains such a desire.

However, to be somewhat reluctantly fair, this male and female pair of authors did bring up two extremely interesting points on which I made some attempt to gather additional information for my own edification.

One was the estimated incidence of "jailhouse turnouts" ("normal" women

wooed and won by the "true homosexual" in prison) who returned to their pre-prison heterosexual existence after their prison experience. The respondents pretty generally agreed they did thus return, but there remained some doubt in my mind, since this point seemed debatable. Yet guesstimate on the "outside" was substantially the same, a typical statement reading this wise: "It would depend-most of them would return to heterosexuality I suppose-it would depend on how strong they are."

Secondly, the issue of "giving up the work" is described by the authors as a "trial period" in which the "butch" does not expect the "femme" to reciprocate in the sexual act, and "should be viewed as defenses against deep emotional involvement and subsequent loss of the affection of these women (jailhouse turnouts) as they leave prison."

Again, on the outside, news of this phenomenon, unrelated to prison life, comes mostly from down Chicago way and this is described less graphically as being "real Butch." East and West Coast informants either do not talk about it or have nothing to say on the issue, but if memory serves me, intimate chatter has occasionally revealed some evidence of this kind not limited to prisons, Chicago, or everybody else.

I can conceive of no value this in-

telligence might have for the social and prison reformers, social scientists, et al, in spite of the truly remarkable way in which our authors went about tracking this very personal information down (as though it were the very denouement of a mystery tale). I do conceive, if somewhat dimly, the value it might have to the Lesbian, if it were better understood and further analyzed.

must be

Ward and Kassebaum thanked then, for having brought to our attention, as well as to the attention of the prison authorities, a highlycharged bit of Lesbian sociometrics.

Charlotte

9