this premise alone; he is concerned

to argue that all fixed or exclusive homosexuals are neurotic, and in the sentence just quoted he defines neurosis in terms of exclusivity (or inflexibility or rigidity or fixation, etc.). But a scientific question Dr. Ellis speaks of his opinions as scientifically and clinically-based

(p. 28) — is not settled by a definition. If one is to make an honest scientific inquiry as to whether exclusive homosexuals are invariably neurotic, one has to define the entity, exclusive homosexuality, inde pendently, i. e. independently of one's definition of neurosis. For the question is a question of fact, namely, is the one complex entity invariably accompanied by the other? And it is not science, it is just a piece of verbal legislation, to define neurosis in such a way that exclusive homosexuality has to be neurotic. No wonder that in Dr. Ellis' counseling experience he never finds exclusive homosexuality unaccompanied by neurosis. (For years I have taught underclassmen the elements of scientific method; it still disconcerts -though it does not surpriseme to learn that a professional sexologist such as Dr. Ellis is ignorant of the rudiments of the logic of inquiry.)

It should be observed that Dr. Ellis does not conclude that all exclusive homosexuals are neurotic from his definition of neurosis alone (apparently he does not see that it follows therefrom). He has another premise, i. e. that exclusive

homosexuality is not innate but learned. Presumably he asserts this because he thinks that if exclusive homosexuality were innate it would not be neurotic. But this merely reflects a fashionable dogma, i. e. the insistence that what we term "neurotic" cannot be innate. Why not? Surely Dr. Ellis is not so uninformed as to believe that inherited disorders cannot ever or ought not ever be cured. (I leave open both questions, Is exclusive bomosexuality innate?, and, Should it be termed a "disorder'? I agree with Dr. Ellis that the preponderance of evidence suggests that exclusive homosexuality is not innate; but it must be emphasized that what is involved here is merely a preponderance of quite limited findings.) Let us examine Dr. Ellis' crucial premise in another way. It is his claim that we must define general neurosis ".. by using some criterion of illogicality, irrationality, childishness, fixation, fetichism, inflexibility, rigidity, or exclusivity (sic!)." What a catch-all that disjunction is! Is there any human being who could escape so wide a net? Certainly not Dr. Ellis; for in his books as well as in the article under discussion he characteristically confuses as in the instance I pointed out abovequestions of fact with questions of definition. Which, for a scientist, is illogicality with a vengeance.

Dr. Ellis writes of "..the fact that hundreds of thousands of homophiles are shiftless, unproductive,

mattachine REVIEW

and uncreative in actual practice.." Ironically, he makes this charge after plausibly accusing someone else of " ..a most exaggerated statement.." (p. 25) I am curious about Dr. Ellis' scientific criteria for shiftlessness and lack of productivity. In truth, this exaggeration of his is merely a piece of impressionistic deprecation. Not only is it vague; it is utterly without statistical basis. By stating that it is a fact, Dr. Ellis only brings into question whether he knows what a fact is.

At one place Dr. Ellis quotes Dr. Frank Beach's assertion that "there is nothing 'unnatural' about homosexual activity." He says that Dr. Beach's claim is "technically true". (p. 27) Buthas the term "unnatural” been defined in such a way as to permit that statement's being either technically true or false? Is the occurrence of homosexuality among other mammals than humans and its wide-spread incidence in known human societies the criterion for naturalness? I will not here rehearse the familiar difficulties concerning the epithets "natural" and "unnatural”. Scientifically-minded persons ought avoid both terms like plagues (incidentally, on the foregoing criterion of naturalness, plagues and their effects are natural!).

After alleging that Dr. Beach's statement is technically true, Dr. Ellis adds that it is somewhat mis-

leading. For, he says, "..when a perfectly natural form of sex participation, such as masturbation or

anal intercourse, becomes fixed or exclusive, so that the individual only receives sex satisfaction from that one limited kind of activity, this mode of sexuality then becomes a deviation or perversion and, as such, it is a distinctly neurotic (or psychotic) (form of behavior." (pp. 27-8) Now this latter thesis of Dr. Ellis, it should be made clear, has no bearing whatever on the question, Are exclusive homosexuals invari ably neurotic? For exclusive masturbation (or exclusive anal intercourse) is neither limited to, nor by any means always practised by, exclusive homosexuals. It is remarkable that Dr. Ellis did not distinquish between his two theses. Further, why did Dr. Ellis omit to mention coitus as an example along with masturbation and anal intercourse? Surely coitus is a perfectly natural kind of sexual activity. Did he fail to mention coitus because his se cond thesis would have been seen for what it is a howler? For indeed it would have been grotesque if he had openly claimed that those persons whose sexual activity is li mited to coitus are thereby engaged in a distinctly neurotic (or psychotic) form of behavior.

Dr. Ellis' dogmatic pluralism, both about the sex of one's partners and modes of sexual activity, is not science; it is advocacy. I too prefer variety, but I see no reason to degrade what I personally find monotonous and confining with illthought-out appeals to psychologic al jargon and a pseudo-biology.