THE LITERATURE on homosexuality is heavy with expositions on how maladjusted is the vast majority (if not all) of the homosexuals in our society. Most of these writers, it would seem, are careful to point out that they are not homosexual themselves.

But a growing body of students of the subject are taking the opposite viewpoint. Some of these who dare to write that all homosexuals are not necessarily maladjusted write from personal experience and intimate personal observation. In other words they are homosexual themselves. This, some social scientists believe, is as it should be. Others hold that the "subjective viewpoint" offers little that is valid. They dismiss

that which is written by homosexuals as "special pleading" and a poor defense at best.

But is it? Why should sexological science expect the total authorita tive pronouncement about homosexuality to come from non-homosexuals only?

How can someone who has

never faced the problem of adjust ment in a hostile society know what

it means to do so?

In EVERY TENTH MAN, an article abstracted from the British medical journal, THE LANCET, a medical doctor with 30 years' experience as a general practitioner describes how 16 of his personal acquaintances have achieved adjustment in terms of their families, their work, and their homosexuality. This doctor

4

Every

Tenth

Man

1

states that these cases did not come to him for treatment or consultation for homosexual problems. And finally the doctor concludes that sexual attraction of one person for another of the same sex is not unique, and that homosexuals themselves know that medical treatment cannot make them different from what they are.

At least 10% of adult males fall into the Kinsey ratings which would classify them as predominantly hoclassify them as predominantly ho-

mosexual, this doctor has found. That means between 12 and 2 million men in Britain and approximately 9 million men in the U. S. fall into these categories. Add to this an unknown but conservatively estimated number of women, and the figure in this country becomes something greater than 15 million adults. Can this country long afford to consider this segment of our population as

mattachine REVIEW

Few issues in modern times have had any greater impact on a nation and attention in its press than the recommendations of the Wolfenden Committee in England. This Committee, appointed by Parliament, investigated the matter of homosexual offenses and prostitution. It made its report in September 1957. First official attention was given to it a few weeks later when a member of the House of Lords addressed that body and moved that the recommendations be considered.

But in the meantime, the British press had been alive with thorough discussions of the subject.

In November 1958 the House of Commons devoted a day to debate of the Committee's recommendations to change laws so that consenting sex acts between male homosexuals would no longer be an offense, providing both were 21, and no harm, violence or fraud were involved. This was the embodiment of the principle conclusions of the Committee.

This debate ended with no action taken. Home Secretary R. A. Butler announced that British public opinion was still not advanced to the point where Parliamentary action was indicated.

Thus in England today, this subject is still "on the shelf." However, the press and many public leaders are busy with action designed to spur legal reform.

The Homosexual Law Reform Society was formed in London over two years ago. It is advised and supported by a hundred or so men and women prominent in public life in England, including many from the clergy, law and medicine.

Both the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches have come out favoring legal reform in England. They say private sex acts of this sort are a sin, but should not be considered a crime.

Most leading British newspapers and magazines have published one or more articles on the subject—and the general attitude has been one that favors passage of the Wolfenden recommendations.

socially unacceptable? Can it afford to designate these people as "se curity risks" just because of what they are? Or should a real examination be made of our "moral stand-

ards" and morals laws so that we can discard those attitudes and regulations found wanting in the light of modern knowledge of human sexual behavior?

In the article in THE LANCET, the editors state that "where prosecution is undertaken (for homosexual offenses)-even unsuccessfully-the penalty can be appalling; and our present system has serious side effects in blackmail and (often unexplained) suicide. In considering either the fairness or the efficacy of

5