BOOKS

HOMOSEX-

WHAT EVERY UAL KNOWS, by R. O. D. Benson, Ace paperback, 441 pp., $1.25

Behind a garishly seductive cover photo, and a fresh title that misses the book's message (Benson in his original, IN DEFENSE OF HOMOSEXUALITY, A Rational Evaluation of Social Prejudice, put forward a line of argument which he felt every homosexual ought to know), hides a paperback reissue of one of the best logical defenses to date of the homosexual position.

Our society tells the homosexual: "Your behavior, your entire orientation, is repugnant, diseased and contagious, self-defeating and damnable!" And each homosexual, whether or not he seeks self-respect and self-knowledge, must have some sort of answer, either a rendering out of guilt in the confessional or on the analyst's couch, or the flippant "Get You!" of the swish, or some conscious effort at justification.

their

Because most heterosexuals get justification premasticated, homosexuals are often squeamish about such efforts which seem so like special pleading. But the accusing challenge must be met, either accepting the adverse judgment, or answering it. This book is a sound, careful and convincing defense. It is not always easy reading, but good argument rarely is. Dorr Legg, in ONE Magazine, Nov. 65, pg 11, insists that everything Benson says is old hat in the homophile movement. Not really. In at least 1000 discussion groups, classes, conventions, business meetings, etc., I've attended in the movement, most of the possible range of general statements about homosexuality have been heard. But Benson presents not a random collection of statements, but a well-reasoned argument, the shape of which is fresh and vital. His unawareness of work preceeding his own, however unfortunate, does not often weaken his fine solo performance. His aim, "to provide the homosexual with a philosophy that will enable him to come to grips with his life and not feel guilty over his life-choice of homosexuality" was broadly our aim

in launching Institute

ONE

more than a decade ago-yet few of Benson's readers will have had the advantage of those classes.

The book's virtues outweigh these faults, for Benson presents complex and logically technical propositions with unusual clarity, precision and interest. In combining a sophisticated philosophical presentation (in line with modern analytical schools, rather than the sentimentality and metaphysical ooze that often passes for philosophy in this area) with a form of argument useful to readers unschooled in analytic disciplines, Benson has unavoidably alternated between explaining and repeating too much for some, and moving too fast or getting in too deep for others.

His first two sections almost justify Legg's attack, the first part closely resembling ONE Institute presentations, and the second being a sound but cursory treatment of arguments more extensively and forcefully developed by the Institute as well as by Dr. Sherwin Bailey, the Rev. Robert Wood, the Church of England, the Quaker Report, etc.

Tackling the view that homosexuality is unnatural, Benson notes such "laws of nature" as that man cannot fly, or that childbirth "should be" painful, and concludes that it is man's nature to amend nature's laws. Man, he says, modifies his conditions by thinking over his problems. Man essentially creates his own world, imposing his values on nature. Man values pleasure for its own sake. We can find no universal standard to tell us which values, or pleasures, ought to have precedence, and nature provides no moral guide to human actions. Even where we can deduce from nature our initial or primitive reason for some activity, such as sex, nature cannot tell us what we ought to do now, or how to do it. The charge that homosexuality is unnatural is simply specious.

Turning to religion, Benson cleanly disposes of the common (and morally damaging) argument that homosexuality is especially and unalterably condemned by the Bible. It is assumed, he says, that the Bible is God's word, and that its meaning is unmistakably clear. Yet interpretations vary on the clearest passages, and Christians easily ignore those not suiting their predis-

positions. They get worked up about obscure passages condemning homosexuality, but regard Mosaic dietary law and commands to put adulterers to death as obsolete.

Benson fails to notice recent advances many Churchmen have made, or to properly assess the mental turmoil of guilt-ridden homosexual Christians.

He demonstrates a fuller mastery of the psychological literature, and an incisive manner of criticism. The purest of the sciences, he notes, are not so accurate, absolute or neatly agreed on as laymen suppose, and personality theory is far from being solidly established, no matter how glibly some of its practitioners may pontificate. He quotes psychological studies which demonstrate that therapists can rarely agree on the factual description of the "data" they observe, much less in their interpretations of the "causes" (thoroughly obvious to each one, but not to the others) of those facts. Actually, people rarely if ever see the same "facts."

Nor do psychotherapists often exercise the cautions and controls generally considered prerequisite to scientific research or reporting. They widely ignore the principle, for which there is considerable inter-disciplinary evidence, that "the same stress does not produce the same reactions in all individuals"-he cites human tears as an effect which might have any of several causes.

He also notes that there is a normal reaction to stress, which might, under other conditions, or where the causes

are

not apparent, seem to indicate neurotic behavior. For example, it is considered symptomatic of paranoia for a person to feel persecuted or discriminated against. But how else ought people feel who are in fact being persecuted or discriminated against? Therefore, Benson argues, we cannot reasonably attribute a certain type of behavior to mental disorder unless we know the individual and his background rather fully.

If sexual behavior were limited strictly to the reproductive function, it could be (as Gide long ago argued) considerably more economical. In the higher mammals, it is learned behavior, not instinctive, and it is indeterminate in its object. For the individual, pleasure is a valid and sufficient end of such behavior. Therefore, that which pleasures one or two individuals, without harming others, is valid for them. Since most men, at least, show a potential for homosexual or heterosexual behavior interchangeably, he argues that psychological labelling of homosexuality as a sickness is mere value 13