on the BISEXUALITY of man

by Ward Summer

FIRST OF ALL, let us remember

that man is not classified as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual by the biological scientist. He is classified in the animal kingdom, as a primate, homo sapiens. In other words, he is a human being before he is anything else. He is possessed of an immortal soul, he belongs to this or that culture or subculture, he lives in such and such a time, he belongs to one economic class or another, he is young or middle-aged or old, and he is motivated by certain instincts or drives. The point of all this is simply that a man is no more essentially a homosexual than he is essentially 35 years old or a citizen of the United States of America. He is only a creature who bleeds when he is cut, and who must breathe oxygen in order to live.

Remembering that man is man before anything else, it will soon be seen that if his manner of sexual gratification is habitually different from the majority, it is merely an individual idiosyncracy. It does not in the least touch upon his basic nature. As Andre Gide has shown in his rather unusual book, Corydon, the lower animals have been observed engaging in homosexual activities. No one in his right mind would feel that the basic nature of the lower animals had been changed by these activities. They are still the same animals. The fact is, any sexual activity is acceptable to the animal. He appears to care little about the "means" of gratification. Whatever is easiest is most acceptable. Usually, normal coitus is easiest for them, but were it not for that, the whole

who

Mr. Summer is a graduate student in psychology and has worked in a state mental hospital. He bases his conclusions on a recent and extensive survey of case histories of both homoand heterosexual adults have undergone psychoanalysis, as well as upon private investigation and interviews. In every case examined, without exception, where the one expression of sexuality appears on the surface of the personality, its opposite may be found to co-exist within the subconscious.

business of procreation would be nothing more than a haphazard, accidental thing. This attitude permeafes the entire life-stream. Flowers pollinate their neighbors in a most promiscuous disregard for their sex. And any sexual activity at all, hit-or-miss, is also natural for man. This can be observed in primitive, or uncivilized societies where, outside of certain bizarre taboos, anything is permitted. It is only that man, in our culture, with his great intellectualization, has the ability (and uses it) to repress in himself anything he chooses.

In our modern society, it is the custom of the majority to repress in themselves all elements of homosexuality. Among the homosexuals, it is the heterosexual element that is

repressed. It is obvious that the bisexual, who is supposedly unre pressed, must necessarily be a freer individual in that he is in touch with more of himself than the others.

People repress sides of their personalities because of fear. The heterosexual represses his homosex uality because of fear of social condemnation. The homosexual represses his heterosexuality because of fear of the opposite sex, or because of rebellion born of fear of society. There has been a great deal of talk of late about children and adolescents going through a "homosexual phase". This so-called infantile stage of development is nothing more than natural bisexuality. The pubertal or adolescent child is actually as interested in the one sex as in the other-it is all hero worship. Some homosexuals have even admitted going through a "heterosexual" stage as children. If their development had been arrested at that age, would they now be normal individuals? The implications are that homosexuality is childish. I maintain that it is no more childish than hetero-

sexuality. Either orientation is onesided. The bisexual alone is natural -as is demonstrated by children and animals. (I don't mean to imply that this is an argument for promiscuity. Psychopathic sexual excess is al other problem altogether and has no place in this discussion)

Certainly it IS childish to ignore" our responsibilities. And society might at least have some reason to criticize the bisexual if he limited himself to homosexual activities and ignored his familial duties. We must accept our responsibilities, although society is not necessarily a valid judge as to what those responsibilities are. At any rate, for society to condemn the homosexual on the same grounds (and. what other grounds could it have?) is not merely presumptuous, it is pointless. The homosexual does not have the choice that the bisexual has. His actions are determined by subconscious needs over which he has no control. By the same token, the heterosexual need not feel that he is' superior to the former, inasmuch as his actions are likewise governed by unconscious needs. That he is admittedly happier and luckier in many respects, is beside the point. He is still helpless.

Society must protect itself from the individual just as the individual who is maladjusted must protect himself from society. The latter, to be sure, is an amorphous abstract concept only but its fears are none the less as great and as irrational as those of the individual. What society must learn is that the race will continue regardless of the actions of isolated individuals. isolated individuals. Somehow, ba-

bies will continue to be born (adding to the over-population problem of the world, by the way) and there will always be families to protect and instruct them.

What the individual must learn is that if he limits himself to one sex

mattachine REVIEW