"the law was passed (because these acts were seen as) an abomination against nature and God. It was done with a tremendous emotional impactthe feeling of disgust and horror at the acts was (made) implicit." Furthermore, he points out that these "abominable" sexual acts were relatively few in number; consequently, the males had ample time and energy left for perpetuating the society.

Another explanation attempting to account for some of the antipathy toward homosexuality is that there exists some unconscious unknown fear of it in all humans; this may or may not be socially learned (depending on the theorist). This view, however, does not throw any light on the genesis of the antipathy unless one does posit innate attitudes, of which there is little evidence. Some societies, Denmark, France and Sweden for example, 11 do not condemn homosexuality legally (nor, supposedly, socially), which would seem to further reject this notion of an innate, unconscious fear. In fact, the "Puritan Ethic" is almost exclusively an Anglo-American phenomenon, at least in origin.

Notions which are occasionally encountered in homosexual literature to the effect that these antipathies are the result of "jealousy," "compensation" or "repressed and latent desires" deserve only brief mention. Rationalizations of all types are abundant in the folklore of any "minority group."

Possibly the most plausible theory is one which is primarily sociological in nature. Role-behavior is an integral part of all human groups. Sex-roles are clearly defined and highly symbolized in most societies, because of the fundamental biological distinction between the sexes. Sex-identification is almost universally learned at an early age, and carried forth in successive stages in the life of an individual. It is an easy matter to see how the notions of "naturalness" and "unnaturalness" arise, therefore. "Many societies recognize still further categories, which include men who act like women, and women who act like men. These in-betw.en persons are sometimes looked upon as biological abnormalities."12

In those societies which do not take these "in-between persons" for granted, a higher degree of role-definition may be the rule. Therefore, when one transgresses these fundamental role-boundaries, deep feelings of antipathy are aroused in other members of the group and sanctions are then applied to the deviant to insure conformity in the future. As the traditional social structure breaks down or undergoes drastic changes (e.g., from a

11. See Marvin Cutler, ed., Homosexuals Today, section II, for a survey of foreign homosexual activities.

12. Lindesmith and Strauss, op. cit., p. 321-322. Also, for a systematic discussion of "sex-role inversion" see pp. 318-319, same volume.

well-defined rural society to a loosely-organized urban pattern), the roledefinitions likewise lose many of their compulsive aspects, and deviantsof certain types are increasingly accepted (re. the rise of "visibility" of some types of homosexuals, particularly formal organizations which will be discussed below). However, the most sacred and ritualistic roles may endure longer than others, and recurrent attempts to "restore order," to "bring back the good old days when men were men and women were women" may result in more or less sporadic application of sanctions against certain deviants (e.g., the cyclic police "vice clean-ups" in many cities). This hypothesis, if somewhat refined, is probably worthy of some thorough research and testing.

Quite apart from the "cause," or genesis, of these beliefs, homosexuality is probably the object of more "putative"13 qualities than any other deviation. Common imputations that homosexuals must be promiscuous, are childmolesters, seduce recruits into their ranks, are all effeminate ("I can spot a 'queer' a mile away"), are inextricably linked with other forms of vice and crime and so on ad-infinitum are clearly stereotyped notions. Various superstitions can also be found to center around homosexuals. As is the case in all stereotyping, it is an over-generalization, and may or may not be applicable to even a small portion of the object-group.

Frequently, as the result of these stereotyped imputations the antipathies become so intense and often mediate much of the formal treatment of the deviant. It is at this point, that the "spurious qualities of the societal reaction"14 occur; when the punishment just seems way out of proportion to the "crime" by all standards. It is to be remembered that the individual homosexual must exist in this milieu, and possibly for that reason alone he develops some of the other undesirable qualities (neuroses, etc.), or may even largely live up to his stereotype, as in the "self-fulfilling prophecy." It will be seen below that this is one of the main reasons that the homosexual "articulate leaders" seek to destroy these stereotypes through education and counter-propaganda.

It may add perspective at this point to remember that there is not only one sexual code in American culture. Lindesmith and Strauss have tentatively identified three general sexual codes in this country: the "traditional," the "romantic" and the "predatory-recreational."15 A discussion of these would be somewhat superflous since the labels are fairly denotative. But it. is interesting to note that the traditional, and to a lesser extent the romantic, codes do prevail and have prevailed in most areas of Western society since 13. Edwin M. Lemert, op. cit., pp. 55-56.

14. Edwin M. Lemert, loc. cit.

15. Lindesmith and Strauss, op. cit., pp. 339-342.

mattachine REVIEW