Vive la difference (or lack of it)

Press, 8 September 1979, Page 17

Vive la difference (or lack of it)

Homosexuality in Perspective. William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1979. 411 pp. Bibliography and index. $19.50 (Reviewed by Ken Strongman) Since the time of Freud, Havelock Ellis and Kinsey, it is Masters and Johnson who have provided the world with the most complete and most penetrating, not to say boring, descriptions of human sexual habits. Or, rather, of the sexual habits' of groups of anomalously “normal” American volunteers and those with neurotic sexual problems. So successful was their earlier work on the human sexual response, that their more recent research has been conducted within their own institute at St Louis, Missouri. Behind cloistered walls they have studied an enormous range of male and female homosexual behaviour, both normal and problematic. I should point out that in this context, normal means typical of homosexual behaviour, and, more interestingly, very similar to heterosexual behaviour. “Homosexuality in Perspective” is divided into two parts, the first (11 chapters) being concerned with detailed 1 observations of the homosexual behaviour of 94 male and 82 female volunteers, and the second (seven chapters) with the clinical difficulties experienced by a further 161. The methods by which the subjects in the first part volunteered and were selected are described in great detail, none of which can Obscure the point that to volunteer to engage in observed cunnilingus and fellatio would not be to everyone’s taste.

This part of the book is not easy reading. One has to put up with shopping lists of factual material in order to find the interesting items. There are many figures and statistical comparisons, to find joy in which the reader would need a genuinely academic or personal interest in homosexuality. However, the more broadly interesting points are surprising and illuminating, at least to a naive heterosexual like myself. Masters and Johnson found no differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals in their responsiveness to sexual stimuli, a point which might help to ease the widespread public castigation of homosexuality. Further, it is quite clear that, homosexual or heterosexual, men are not multiorgasmic as are many women, and in this sense at least cannot be regarded as sexually dominant. Finally, one of the main differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals is that the former show much higher levels of communication, perhaps as part of their quest for security in a basically hostile society. The second, clinical, section of the book, makes for more interesting reading. It is heavily peppered with case studies, which always hold the peeping - through - the - curtains fascination more typical of biography and fiction than of academic tests. Again, one of the main points to emerge from a mass <rf repetitive information is that the sexual difficulties encountered by homosexuals are similar to those of heterosexuals. Males are sometimes impotent and females anorgasmic. However, generally speaking, therapy is more successful with heterosexuals

than with homosexuals. The point is again made strongly that the bulk of sexual behaviour is the same, irrespective of the same-sex or opposite-sex inclinations of the person. It is perhaps worth saying a word about one interesting group which Masters and Johnson picked up in their research. These were ambisexuals, some male some female, with a genuinely equal interest in either sex. Most professed ambisexuals are not genuine; they have a preference, but some of the people Masters and Johnson observed were quite unconcerned about the gender of their partner, although not surprisingly they did not relish committed relationships either way. However, once again their sexual habits were no different from fully fledged homosexuals or heterosexuals. “Homosexuality in Perspective” contains more than 400 pages of information about homosexual behaviour, carefully collected and precisely written. Although it embraces some interesting points, it would be a tedious book for most people. Of course, the exception would be he or she who likes to collect unusual facts to produce at inopportune moments. For example, there is no difference in the amount of masturbation engaged in by homosexuals and heterosexuals, whether male or female. By contrast, homosexuals are more interested than heterosexuals in raising and maintaining the sexual arousal of their partners. Be this as it may, there is one major criticism which can be made of the work on which the book is based. The research rests on subjective impressions of observations made of essentially self-selected samples of homosexuals. Also, I could not stop the irreverent thought that some day there might appear a book from some clandestine investigator who has been studying voyeurism in Masters and Johnson. I am glad that this book has been written; it is always good to dispel myths. However, I suspect that it will be mainly bought by libraries; it is more a work of reference than a stimulating read for the concerned layman. It will be read, or at least skimmed, by some academics, some doctors, some clinical psychologists with an interest in the problems of homosexuals, and perhaps by some homosexuals, who would probably find considerable comfort within its pages. Masters and Johnson are doing a worth-while job, but as well as disseminating their information in the rather dry manner of “Homosexuality in Perspective” they should produce it in a form more suitable for a wider audience. If further substantiated, the relative lack of difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals could and should have important social and even legal ramifications. Professor Strongman is Professor of Psychology at The University of Canterbury. Until the beginning of this year he was on the staff of The University of Exeter jn Britain.