ably existed in all cultures of all ages, that the state of Western culture actually encouraged it more than any other. Therefore, to her, the question was not "Why the Lesbian?" but "Why so many Lesbians?"

Dr. Zeff analyzed why the theme had even been put in such a fashion "Why the Lesbian?"

"Wo

·

seek 'causes' in order to understand that which we cannot accept and in order to deal adequately with it we think!"

Dr. Zeff admitted frankly that he had no idea as to what caused Lesbianism, and it did not seem to bother him that ho did not. He questioned the "Acceptance through Under – standing" hypothesis. "Love. Where does it come in-

to the picture?" he wanted to know.

COMMENTS ON LESBIAN STATEMENTS

Dr. Beach felt that the theme could have as reasonably been "Why the Heterosexual?" Ho then commented on the four Lesbian statements (published in the June issue of THE LADDER) which had been selected by the DOB to serve as an introduction to the panel discussion. He was particularly interested in statement number four which hinted at a congenital factor for homosexuality being a possibility, but the last paragraph eluded him completely. (The last paragraph said that the anonymous lady in question didn't believe in any of the standard "causes" for Lesbianism including the congenital theory, that she was more inclined to believe that women were just plain sick of being dominated by men and were seeking their own souls!)

Dr. Norman Reidor said that ho had no argument on the universality of the biologic-sexual drive. He felt that "why the choice of object?" was the real issue, or "why not any object?" for that matter. Ho did not believe that the social and cultural aspects given answered the question. He inclined more toward psycho-pathology and developmental psychology.

In the cross-fire that followed, Dr. Beach stated that he was forever struck that in all Lesbian discussions of the

9