altogether. He did not believe that the percentage of homosexuals that mole sted children could be nearly as high as the percentage of heterosexuals that molested children from the simple fact of the re being not more than from five to ten homosexuals per 100 of population, coupled with the incidence of this sex deviation of child molesting In both groups. Dr. Zifforstein folt that all this "peoping and prying" only gave evidence and continuing climate to the undercurrent of feeling that there is a special dirtiness about sex in general. Dr. Graves was queried as to the incidence of homosexuality in prison. He guessed that at times it could go as high as 50 percent of the male population but that it was looked upon differently in prison than in the out side society. By the psychiatrists it was called "situational sex behavior" that is, something most of the men involved would not do if they had normal outlets for their sex drives, and that the rofore it was not jud ged as harshly by prison officials, although they tried to keep homosexual practices to a minimum. Dr. Graves did not feel that homosexual criminals should be given any more special treatment than any other criminal. All criminals wore special unto themselves, he felt, and should all be treated for their own individual problems.

Mr. Selwyn queried Dr. Graves as to the feasibility of allowing prisonors the right to have sexual intercourse with their wives or sweethe arts as is permitted in Mexican jails. Would not this practise cut down on the "cituational homosexuality?" Dr. Graves agrood that it probably would if there were some way to bring about our society's acceptance of this practice. Dr. Zifferstein pointed out that our society was basically an anti-sexual society, not just an anti-homosexual society. He implied that it was because of this there were so many sex deviates, homosexuals included. Homosexuals, por se, he did not fool were dangerous to the common good. The "homosexual neurosis" was no worse than any other neurosis to him. Dr. Gravos did not seem necessarily to agree with Dr. Zifferstein as to homosexuality being a neurosis to start with. In this society where homosexuality is connected with great moral repugnance, he felt that naturally most homosexuals were going to get nourotic over the state of affairs, if they hadn't been to start with.

The next question was directed to Mr. Otash. Why is there such a big differonco in the viewpoints of Law, Law