AN I N T E R V I E W WITH EVELYN HOOKER LAUD HUMPHREYS Pitzer College

INTRODUCTION

In August of 1956, a paper read by Evelyn Hooker at meetings in Chicago of the American Psychological Association marked a turning point in the course of social scientific research on homosexuality. The Kinsey research had already provided the Western World with a fresh, empirical approach to the study of human sexuality in general; however, in spite of data presented by Kinsey and his associates, the study of "sexual inversionS' (one of the less prejudicial phrases in style at that time) continued to be dominated by analysts, psychiatrists, and others committed to a clinical model. As Dr. Hooker pointed out in that crucial paper, "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual": From a survey of the literature it seemed highly probable that few clinicians have ever had the opportunity to exami0e homosexual subjects who neither came for psychological

[191]

[192] ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES

help nor were found in mental hospitals, disciplinary barracks in the Armed Services, or in prison populations. It therefore seemed important, when I set out to investigate the adjustment of the homosexual, to obtain a sample of overt homosexuals who did not come from these sources (1957: 19). What she did, just over twenty years ago, n o w seems obvious: the pairing of thirty homosexuals w h o "seemed to have an average adjustment" w i t h the same number of like heterosexual subjects, for all of w h o m she and a panel of experts analyzed a battery of projective techniques and attitude scales. What is not so obvious is that Hooker did not assume pathology on the part of her research subjects, an important difference from nearly all predecessors in the field. The conclusions of her study were also extraordinary. Among other points, she found that: Homosexuality as a clinical entity does not exist. Its forms are as varied as are those of heterosexuality. Homosexuality may be a deviation in sexual pattern which is within the normal range, psychologically . . . . The role of particular forms of sexual desire and expression in personality structure and development may be less important than has frequently been assumed (1957: 29-30). Research in homosexual behavior and orientation has not been the same since that study. A f e w individuals, chiefly centered around a group of New York psychoanalysts, have continued to ignore Hooker's findings; but most others picked up on the new, nonpathological paradigm. In a tentative paper delivered a year earlier, Hooker noted that " m a n y homosexuals are beginning to think of themselves as a minority group, sharing many of the problems of other minority groups and having to struggle for their 'rights' against the prejudices of a dominant heterosexual majority." Published in a relatively obscure journal, however, that prophetic paper escaped notice until portions of it were

Humphreys / INTERVIEW WITH EVELYN HOOKER [193]

rephrased in a chapter written for Marmor's volume, Sexual Inversion (1965: 103-105). Over the next three years, she published a series of papers that expanded upon the methodology employed in her paradigmatic research. Throughout the 1960s, she contributed a half dozen more papers to the literature, focused primarily around the male homosexual community. This phase of her work culminated in the "Hooker Report," the "Final Report of the Task Force on Homosexuality," which she chaired for the National Institute of Mental Health. The appearance of that quasi-official study in 1969 coincided with the Christopher Street Riots and the launching of a new movement for gay liberation. Meanwhile, a second generation of researchers were producing empirical data and developing a body of sociological theory that corresponded with Hooker's nonpathological paradigm. Among these investigators of the homosexual world in the latter half of the 1960s were William Simon and John Gagnon, Martin Hoffman, Edwin Schur, and myself. We were nourished by the cultural relativism of the anthropological study, Patterns of Sexual Behavior by Ford and Beach (1951), along with the Kinsey heritage passed down by Gebhard, Pomeroy, and others from the Institute of Sex Research. Hooker, however, provided us with both a sound foundation in social psychology and personal encouragement. The American Psychiatric Association's action, at the end of 1973, to remove homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was due, in no small part, to years of persistence and careful social science practiced by Evelyn Hooker. No less a testimonial to her work, however, resides in the fact that a third generation of researchers in homosexuality look to her as a leading pioneer ancl mentor. Still a Clinical Professor at the Neuropsychiatric Institute of the University of California, Los Angeles, Dr. Hooker maintains a private practice in therapy and serves as consultant for many research pro-

[194] ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES j e c t s in h u m a n s e x u a l i t y . S h e is c u r r e n t l y e n g a g e d in a f o l l o w - u p s t u d y on her o r i g i n a l g r o u p of t h i r t y r e s p o n d e n t s . BEGINNINGS: "YOUR SCIENTIFIC DUTY TO STUDY US"

L: According to my files, your first paper dealing w i t h homosexuality was "A Preliminary Analysis of Group Behavior of Homosexuals," appearing in the Journal of Psychology in 1956. (That is a remarkably prophetic paper, incidentally, in w h i c h you predict a number of themes involved in the growth of gay liberation.) Are there earlier works I have missed? E: No, that's the very first one, Laud. L: When did you actually begin gathering data on homosexual subjects? E: That involves telling you the story about how I got into this research to begin with. During the War, in 1943 or 44, I had a student, Sammy From, w h o was an extraordinary individual. He was an absolutely brilliant person, w h o was working as a liaison between the Air Force and the aircraft industry and decided to take a course in introductory psychology from me at UCLA. He had lived with his lover (whom he introduced as his cousin George) for ten years; and, very soon after finishing my course, he called one evening and invited me to dinner. At that time, I knew absolutely nothing about homosexuality, except w h a t was in the textbooks (and you can imagine w h a t that was like!). Oh, I had read The Well of Loneliness, w h e n it was smuggled in, but I knew nothing about the subject. Sam was very eager to have his friends meet me, and they were anxious to gain my approval. Everybody was very formal that first night and didn't let down their hair at all . . . . Anyway, from that night on, my first husband and I had a great deal of social life w i t h Sammy and George and a group of gay men and two gay ,women w h o lived in an old, ramshackle house on Benton Way. The core members of this group had met in college, came to California as a group, and lived together. A number of prominent, creative homosexuals stayed at Benton Way w h e n visiting Los A n g e l e s - - I remember meeting Paul Goodman and many others. My husband and I often w e n t to parties there. We saw a w h o l e cross-section of gay society in that house . . . .

Humphreys / INTERVIEW WITH EVELYN HOOKER [195] There was no moment at which they said: "Well, we're gay and what do you think about it?" But they gradually began to see that nothing they did would offend or disturb me. It must have been about a year after that first dinner party that we four decided to take a Thanksgiving holiday trip to San Francisco. We stayed at the Fairmont and Sammy took us to Finocchio's. I had never been to a gay bar. My mouth was open ten feet wide--I thought it was absolutely fantastic! . . . We came back to the Fairmont and were going to have a snack before we went to bed; and Sammy turned to me and said, "Evelyn, we have let you see us as we are. We have hidden nothing from you. You probably know more about people like us (meaning people who function in society and don't go to see psychiatrists because they don't need to) than any psychiatrist or psychologist in the country. Now, it is your scientific duty to study us." Well, I was teaching about eighteen hours a week--and I was doing some experimental work with neurotic rats--and I said: "First of all, I'm not interested; and, second, all of you are my friends. I simply couldn't be objective about you!'" But he persisted. We came back home, and he would not let me go. He kept saying: "You've got to do this!'" Finally, he was so persistent that I went to Bruno Klopfer, the famous Rorschach man, with whom I shared an office (Bruno used to say, "Eveleen and I cubiculate together.") He practically leaped out of his chair and said: "Eveleen, you must do it! He's absolutely right! We don't know anything--all we know about are the sick ones." And so I began with this group - - t h i s is around 1945--and I collected Rorschachs, I collected a little bit of life history material, but not too much . . . . Well, then, my life changed: I went through a painful divorce, spent a year teaching at Bryn Mawr, and, in 1951, was married to Edward Hooker; meanwhile, I remained in contact with Sammy and his friends. Of course, I had all this material--I was absolutely haunted by this material! It was absolutely unique; and I was working, trying to make sense of it. In 1953, I finally said to myself: "'I'm going to apply for a six month grant from NIMH. I want to get a new group: sixes on the Kinsey scale, if possible, and zero on the Kinsey scale for a control group--no one I know in

[196] ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES either group." And that is when the study began. None of the people who taught me what I knew of the gay life were in that study. What apparently sold NIMH on the project was not that I was going to study the individuals but that I was going to study them in their social setting. They said, "Now, Evelyn, we're prepared to give you this grant but (this was 1953, at the height of the McCarthy era) you will be investigated; and, if you don't get it you won't even know why. But you're mad if you think you can do this in six months. Take a year." The real groundwork for my being able to write the proposal was knowing this group for ten years. That is important because, when I started, I was able to say to the people whom I knew: "Help me find subjects." Actually, while some of the gay men were members of Mattachine or ONE [early homophile organizations], the majority of them were not members of either organization. (Please put that in, Laud, because I didn't make that clear in the paper.) L: So you began your systematic data gathering in the spring of 1954? Then, in 1957, the paper on "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" came out--and that has been a major milestone. How would you describe its reception? What was the reaction to that paper? E: Well, the reaction at the meeting of the APA, where I read that paper was very mixed. On the one hand, it was.a reaction of: "This is extraordinary! We knew it all the time but we needed empirical proof!'" Or, on the other hand: "It can't be true. It absolutely cannot be trueT You must have had to search and search and search to find those guys." Then all the literature that has followed since, as you know, has debated that issue. The response that I got from a number of colleagues in very different fields--from gay people as well as professional people-was: "My God, for the first time, somebody has empirical data!"' CHANGES: EXAMINING

"GAY THE

RESEARCHERS

. . .

SETTING"

L: in the twenty years since that paper appeared, what do you think have been the principal changes in the study of homosexuals? We know what the history was before that.time: there

Hurnphreys / INTERVIEWWITH EVELYNHOOKER[197] was a major change with the appearance of the Kinsey studies; but that paper was a turning-point. That was the first time we began to see that we are not dealing with an illness, per se. E: That original assumption which I put to an empirical test has continued in the literature and with more sophisticated designs, with more rigorous methodology; but let me turn to some of the areas that were neglected at that time. Now, we have to come to my community paper (1961), because that's a part of the sequence. At the time t wrote that paper (as you know, it was an invited address at the International Congress of Psychology in Copenhagen), there was only one paper on the gay community and that was the Canadian, the Leznoff and Westley (1956) study. Simultaneously, there began to appear sociological and anthropological studies. I think the major changes which have occurred are not in the area of personality dynamics or of the adjustment of individuals, but in the questions which concern gay people in their social setting. I was convinced at the very outset, and said so in that preliminary paper, that the interplay between the two sets of variables--those of personality dynamics and social variables--is essential. So that if one wants to understand the behavior of gay men, for instance, one has not only to understand individual dynamics, one has also to understand the milieu in which they live. What delights me in what has happened since I gave that paper, in 1961, is that the most significant research, your own for instance, has been done by examining the setting along with the individuals who operate in that setting. The second major change is the advent of gay researchers. That 57 paper gave a large number of professional people who happen to be gay, who were in the social sciences, courage to do research. You can imagine, from my standpoint, believing what I believe about the importance of participant observation, that the most significant change in these past twenty years is: whereas, before that, professional people might be gay but they wouldn't dare let people know that they were--they had to have all kinds of elaborate covers--now the research is being done by professional people who are openly gay. There is, of course, a danger of homosexual bias entering in, which a gay person has to watch just as thoroughly as a straight person has to watch his or her bias.

[198] ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES In the old days, when I would talk to ONE, I would say: "'1 think I have been every place that gay men go, except for gay baths and tearooms. Somebody else has got to do those places.'" The social aspects of gay lifestyle, the most crucial material, can now be researched by gay psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and so forth. So we can now get material which somebody who is straight could never get! CONTINUITY: " A PASSION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE"

L: What I see happening here is that you have gone through a tremendous personal change in your own professional life as a result of this study. You start as a "rat psychologist," a real experimental psychologist, and are changed through this research into a social psychologist--carrying with you the other backgrounds, of course--to the point that sociologists look on you as the primary sociologist in the field. E: Yes, you're right. In fact, they write about me as a sociologist. You said, "you were an experimental psychologist, you were a rat psychologist." When I was in college, I was bitten by the scientific bug and I've never lost it. I read A r r o w s m i t h ; and Karl Muenzinger, who was the most careful scientist, directed my graduate work at the University of Colorado. In a way there is no break in my professional development. Although it is true I was not working in social psychology; nevertheless, my whole scientific training and my whole scientific outlook has not changed. It's true the subject matter has changed, but the essential methodology has not. Now I want to mention one more thing. All of us have to examine our past, I think, if we are to be as conscious of our motivations as possible (and, if we don't do it, I think we are in a bad way). I have often been asked questions and have thought a great deal about how it should happen that I would end up spending half of my, professional life working on sexuality and especially homosexuality. I have never thought about it in these terms, however, until you asked these questions. My father was a tenant farmer. There were nine children, and we grew up in a sod house. He did not own any land of his own until he moved us, when I was about seven or eight years

Hurnphreys / INTERVIEWWITH EVELYN HOOKER[199] old, lock, stock, and barrel to an unbroken section of land in eastern Colorado (there was nothing on it but rattlesnakes and weeds); and we lived (all eleven of us) in a two-room, tarpaper shack. We lived well, that is to say we had lots of good food, fresh air, a marvelous time, but we were dirt poor. My father was a marvelous man, very strong but very gentle. My mother had a driving, consuming a m b i t i o n - - m y mother came in a covered wagon, at the age of four, from Michigan City to Nebraska and that's where she and my father met. She was married at the age of sixteen and she had a child every year for eighteen years! She would say, "Get an education and they can never take it from you." My mother was a practical nurse, and she went out and took care of neighbors during the flu epidemic in 1918. Always in her mind was: "'I'm going to move to the next town so the children can have a better school." When my sister and I were ready for high school, my mother just put her foot down. Nothing would do but that we would move to Sterling, which was the County Seat, because they had a better high school. My mother was head housekeeper in the only hotel that Sterling, Colorado, had. And my sister and I worked in that hotel as chambermaids every summer. We all worked-- everybody worked: my two brothers, when they were nearly seven years old, were messenger boys for Western Union. Very early on, i was keenly aware that we were from the wrong side of the tracks (but we were never allowed to believe that by our mother). But I knew poverty and, very early, while I was at Boulder (this was in 1927, at the time of the Colorado Fuel and Iron strike), we had a magnificent Dean of Women who w e n t out and got up on that platform for the strikers; and I was strongly influenced by her. I was also strongly influenced by Karl, who had a passion for social justice and the oppressed. What I am saying is that the methodology fits in with my training as a scientist; but the fact that I should end up studying an oppressed, a deprived people comes from my own experiences, in part, of being stigmatized. We were keenly aware of the fact that we didn't have the right clothes--if we had shoes to wear, we were damned lucky and my high school teacher used to give me her clothes! When I went to Europe in 1937 and 1938 to study at the Institute of Psychotherapy in

[200] ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES Berlin and, secondarily, could see w h a t was going on under Fascism, and then w e n t to Russia, I debated long and hard w h e t h e r I was going to join the Communist Party--was that the w a y to social justice? I couldn't bring myself to do it--could not accept a totalitarian government. My becoming a social psychologist comes out of my whole life experience, then. THE CUTTING EDGE: "ISSUES OF CIVIL LIBERTIES"

L: What do you think has become the cutting edge of research, now that we're into the third generation of the new, much more sociological paradigm? E: Well, I t h i n k that we have to tie in the gay liberation movement because of the tremendous impact that has had. It's remarkable to me that the same year the Task Force report was published, the Stonewall Riot occurred. Now gay people are no longer w i l l i n g to be treated in the way in w h i c h they had been treated. Remember the policy section of the Task Force report, in w h i c h we urged that studies be made of discrimination against gay people and attitudes towards gay people. I think that n o w the cutting edge is really in terms of the socially relevant issues as gay people confront them every day: that is, issues of civil liberties. What is extraordinary, absolutely phenomenal, is that we should have J o h n DeCecco (1977) now, instead of having the gay activists marching up and down and saying: "You can't discriminate, we're going to sit on your doorstep until you let us do t h i s . " Here's J o h n DeCecco quietly gathering data on w h a t brings discrimination, w h o discriminates, w h a t is the effect on the person w h o is discriminated against, w h a t is the effect on the person w h o does the discriminating, what are the clues that they give you? This brings in w h a t I t h i n k is one of the most important issues that I have been talking about for twenty-five y e a r s - we will never understand I~omosexuality until we understand heterosexuality--never, never, never! And our first recommendation in the Task Force report, w h i c h I fought for bitterly (I wrote that whole agenda anyway, except for the section on prevention, which I didn't w a n t in there), that the're should be

Humphreys / INTERVIEWWITH EVELYN HOOKER[201] established at NIMH a center for the study of sexuality, human sexuality. I did not w a n t a center for homosexuality. It seems to me that what is happening increasingly is that we're going to understand much more about sexual stereotypes; we're going to understand that it's not only the gay guy who suffers, it's also the straight man who does not conform to masculine stereotypes. L: Not to mention the suffering of women . . . . E: Absolutely! In 1967, there was nothing on lesbianism--nothing! And the Task Force insisted that we have studies of lesbians. That is absolutely crucial to our understanding--not just of how lesbian w o m e n live, and how their identities are formed, and w h a t the social milieu is in which they live--but from those studies we're going to discover, I am sure, that a lot of women who have had long heterosexual histories are moving into homosexual relations. For example, some years ago I supervised the therapy of a terribly bright woman. She was, at that time, as straight as is possible. She had never had a homosexual experience, had children, etc. She is now a practicing therapist; and, about a year ago, she called me and said: "'We must get together. I have so much to tell you about what is going on, including the fact that I've just had my first lesbian relationship." She went on to say: "You know, Evelyn, what I am discovering is an increasingly frequent phenomenon, namely, heterosexual women are discovering that what is most deeply satisfying to them is the love of another woman." LESBIANS: "DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESSES"

E: Now I think that is extremely important. When I make a speech, women will come up and say, pleadingly: " W h y don't you do for us what you did for the men?" And I always say: "Well, if I live long enough; besides, I don't need to do it now because other people have done for lesbians what I did for gay men.'" Now, I have always believed that these are qualitatively different phenomena, no doubt about it . . . . L: The lesbian and gay male experiences . . . . E: Yes, because a woman is more influenced by the fact that she

[202] ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES is a woman in the way she lives and what she does than by the fact that she is a lesbian. L: I think that's very true. E: Although we have some good studies, that is one of the more neglected areas, and I think that is one of the prime areas for future research. I'd like to take a group of those women to see what gratification they are finding, what the problems are; because they would be a much more interesting group, in terms of the variability of what has gone into the change, than those who have always been this way. By studying those women who have moved from lengthy heterosexual identities into satisfying lesbian relationships--and, perhaps, lesbian identity--in studying them, we would not necessarily be studying homosexual behavior. L: What we would be looking at is what Brian Miller calls "adult sexual resocialization" in his gay father study; and that is the phenomenon that would tell us something about heterosexuality! Now, we've established two cutting edges: first, in the area of civil rights and with the nature of homophobia; second, in the sexual resocialization of adult wOmen and men. In addition to these, where are the major gaps in our knowledge of the subject today? what should researchers be doing that they are not? what are the deadends in research on homosexuality? what are the major needs? E: t think that the question of etiology is a lost cause. That does not mean only that we do not want to understand the process of development instead of talking about causation; but also, since we know that we are not dealing with a unitary phenomenon, we simply must abandon the medical model. We are dealing with a very complex set of phenomena. There is no group that we can call "homosexuals." What that means is that to talk about even eight or ten variables as causal is false conceptualization! We well know that we are looking at an infinite variety of patterns of behavior and personality structure and function. I prefer to talk and think in terms, not of etiology, but in terms of developmental processes, which is a very different way of conceptualizing: how does it develop? what are the variables which play into its development? Bieber takes it for granted that there is a biological drive towards heterosexual

Humphreys / INTERVIEWWITH EVELYN HOOKER [203] behavior--nonsense, as we all know! What are the variables which, from the moment of conception on, play into that developmental process; biological variables, hormonal variables, neural organization variables, socialization processes, relations with peers? What are these developmental processes which lead to a gay identity or to a straight identity or to a bisexual identity, and to all gradations in between? Now that seems to be not only legitimate, but I would give that topic high priority. To understand sexual differentiation, sexual orientation, how all of these develop seems to me to be absolutely essential if we are going to understand anything about homosexuality or heterosexuality or sex roles or sexual orientation. NEEDS: "A SUPERB A G E N D A "

L: I like the way you put that, because it points up the unity in your thinking since the first paper you published on the subject. You've been building to that point all along. Twelve years ago, in "Male Homosexuals and Their "Worlds'," you insisted that we can't take the simple answer because it is not a simple phenomenon. Your work has developed logically and consistently along that pattern from the beginning. E: And now we have, as one of the newer developments in developmental psychology, life span psychology; so we don't stop at age 21 but we look at adult resocialization, which is a neverending process. Along that line, then, I would repeat that one of the greatest needs is for further study of gay men and lesbians who have been heterosexually married--or, at least, have had extensive heterosexual experience and experience as parents. I think of all those trials on CUStody of children with gay parents, just crying for empirical data! If we could add that priority to the list of needs that Stephen Morin provides in a recent paper in the American Psychologist, we'd have a superb agenda for future research. Having just finished reading it, may I conclude with a paragraph from that excellent paper? Research on lesbians and gay men should give higher priority to questions relevant to the wide variety of homosexual lifestyles. Specifically, research is needed on the dynamics of gay

[204] ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES relationships; the development of positive gay identity; the positive and negative variables associated with self-disclosure to significant others including families, relatives, friends, and co-workers; the advantages and disadvantages of varying degrees of gay identity and commitment; specific problems of gay children and adolescents; aspects of aging in the gay subculture; and conflict involving gay civil liberties.

L: t think that gives us a good summary of your chief points, Evelyn. Thank you very much. E: If you'll let me move back, once more, to my passion for social justice (originating, perhaps, in the poverty of my childhood in eastern Colorado) I must read one more sentence from Morin's paper: Finally, research on the nature and meaning of attitudes toward homosexuality and on methods by which pejorative attitudes can be changed should continue and should be geared toward social action [1977: 636]. EPILOGUE

Not only do Dr. Hooker's remarks provide valuable insights into the life and work of a major figure in the contemporary study of human sexuality, but they point up the centrality of research into lifestyles for understanding sexual identity and behavior. Her w o r k and w o r d s consistently remind us that knowledge about homosexuality is concomitant w i t h knowledge of heterosexuality and a wide variety of "'gradations in b e t w e e n . " The proper concern of social scientists is with those lifelong processes of developing sexual identity that can range across a broad spectrum, and that concern necessitates the study of the variety of social contexts in which such developmental processes take place. Lifestyles interact with identity and neither can be viewed solely as a product of the other. " H o w I live" may only be separated from " w h a t I am" for purposes of analysis, and that artificial distinction can mislead the researcher in much the same way as Hooker indicates we are deceived

Humphreys / INTERVIEW WITH EVELYN HOOKER [205]

in separating causation from developmental process. What she urges is that we avoid considering these complex phenomena in isolation: don't judge the personality adjustment of homosexuals on the basis of a clinical sample alone; there is no single group we can call "homosexuals," but " a n infinite variety of patterns of behavior and personality structure and function"; avoid isolating homosexual orientation and identity from its heterosexual counterpart, or from any number of orientations that are less polarized; do not split the internal dynamic from the social contexts; do not try to understand lesbians apart from their womanhood. For Hooker, the partial approach is not merely fractional; it necessarily results in false conceptualization. As she reviews a quarter century of her work on homosexuality and considers the themes that will occupy researchers for decades to come, Dr. Hooker argues for the holistic as opposed to atomistic approach, for a humanistic social science that transcends the medical model. The agenda she proposes demands that we study a wide variety of lesbian and male homosexual lifestyles, rather than attempt to isolate a population that deviates sexually from a presumed norm. As a pioneer researcher of-the homosexual phenomenon, she directs our attention to the central issues of gender roles, social control, lifestyles, and life span psychology, always diverting us from simplistic formulations to the recognition of human complexity.

REFERENCES DeCECCO, J. P. (1977) "Studying violations of civil liberties of homosexual men and w o m e n . " J. of Homosexuality 2, 4 (Summer): 315-322. FORD, C. S. and F. A. BEACH (1951) Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper & Row. HOOKER, E. (1965) "Male homosexuals and their "worlds'," pp. 83-107 in J. Marmor (ed.) Sexual Inversion. New York: Basic Books. - - - - - - (1961) "The homosexual community." Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Applied Psychology, Personality Research, Vol. 2. Copenhagen: Munksgaard: 40-59.

[206] ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES - - - - - - (1957) "'The adjustment of the mate overt homosexual." J. of Projective Techniques 21: 18-31. LEZNOFF, M. and W. A. WESTLEY (1956) "The homosexual community.'" Social Problems 3, 4 (April): 257-263. MORIN, S. F. (1977) "Heterosexual bias in psychological research on lesbianism and male homosexuality." Amer. Psychologist (August): 629-637.

Laud Humphreys, author of Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places and Out of the Closets: The Sociology of Homosexual Liberation, is Professor of Sociology at Pitzer College in Claremont, California. He is currently serving as Chairperson of the Task Force on Homosexuality and the Profession of the Society for the Study of Social Problems.