ic levels, family backgrounds, geographical and spatial factors will be found to run the gamut of those of the larger society." Lindesmith and Strauss observe further, that although one can speak loosely of a "sub-culture," there are, in reality, countless different, dissimilar and fluctuating "submerged island-societies" of homosexuals (remembering, of course, that most homosexuals probably are not members of such groups). 6

It may be interesting to note at this point that estimates of the scope of the problem vary widely. In this, more than anywhere else, the initial definition of homosexuality becomes crucial. Kinsey estimated that approximately thirty-seven percent of all American males, "at some time in their lives, engage in homosexual activity climaxed by orgasm."7 Other estimates are "one in every ten" (frequently heard popularly), and The Sixth Man, which is the title of a new book (1961) by Jess Stearn. The criteria do vary, however.

Personal, symbolic meanings and adjustments also vary with individual homosexuals. "Homosexuality as a clinical entity does not exist. Its forms are as varied as those of heterosexuality."

To digress for a moment, it should be clear that a statement of position and a set of clear definitions is necessary for conceptualization of this problem. By initially stating that which is not part of the definition and purpose of this approach, the aspects to be emphasized below should take on more meaning. Needless to say, no judgements or positions of "right" or "wrong" should be assumed. It is therefore much simpler to omit any prolonged discussions of "naturalness," etiology, social and personal “harm,” etc.

The fact that society (in the abstract) tends to look upon homosexuality as a single, definable phenomenon, and the further fact that this thinking has been codofied into systems of laws which seek to regulate sexual (thèrefore, homosexual) behavior, dictates that any social-problems approach can and must deal with homosexuality as if it were a single phenomenon. It is, in fine, this social reaction that must be dealt with as well; it is a "twoway social problem."

5. For a further discussion of the demographic aspects, see Lindesmith and Strauss, Social Pathology, particularly pp. 681-682.

6. Lindesmith and Strauss, op. cit., pp. 682-686.

7. Donald Porter Geddes, ed., An Analysis of the Kinsey Reports on the Human Male and Female, pp. 269-270

8. Evelyn Hooker, Ph.D., "Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual," Mattachine Review, Vol. IV, No. 1, (Jan., 1958), p. 10.

mattachine REVIEW

The "Social Problem" of Homosexuality

A "problem" exists whenever something is seen as a problem, and it may even be purely imaginative (e.g., witches, ghosts and werewolves); but it exists, nevertheless, for those who believe it does. In this respect the rationale behind this paper is clearly expressed by Lemert as the "tendency to look upon problem-defining behavior as an integral part of the data to be studied as well as the 'objective' conditions which strike reformers as being 'problems'." The larger society, in this light, becomes as much a subject for scrutiny as the homosexual.

With the foregoing rationale in mind, let it be postulated that bomosexuality exists and, although in reality it is many things, it may, for the purpose of a social-problems analysis, be viewed as a single phenomenon or unitary whole. A corollary postulate would necessarily be that homosexuality, under every known social condition, has never completely disappeared nor been effectively eliminated, and there is no evidence to suggest that it ever will. Now from this frame of reference the obvious inference to be drawn must be: how can the problem be coped with so that the problematical aspects are most effectively reduced or eliminated? Once this position is granted, the burden of responsibility for solving the problem would seem to rest on the larger society.

It should now be clear that the assumption of the author is that there are really two sides to the same coin; on the one side, society in the abstract and on the other, homosexuality in the abstract.

Before going into the side of the coin that refers to the homosexual, it would be relevant to summarize a few of the reasons that have been offered in explanation for society's perceiving homosexuality as undesirable and as a problem.

There are probably many interrelated factors in the genesis and present state of public knowledge, mis-knowledge and general attitudes about sex in the large (societal moral concepts and norms). In America, and most other "Christian" countries, that very religious background is probably responsible for many of these prevailing ideal-values. Early Christian morality, in turn, assumed many of the prevailing and restrictive Judaic codes. These Hebraic mores were often particularly restrictive regarding all forms of sexual behavior other than procreatively-oriented acts. The common explanation that problems of underpopulation were the bases for many of these codes may contain an element of validity. However, as Dr. Bowman 10 has put it, 9. E. W. Lemert, op. cit., p. 4.

10. For an interesting discussion on this subject, see the radio transcript The Homosexual in Our Society, pp. 21, 26-28.