Homosexualities
| Company type | Book |
|---|---|
| Industry | Publishing, academic research |
| Founded | 1978 |
| Founder | Alan P. Bell, Martin S. Weinberg |
| Products | Research book on homosexuality |
Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (1978), authored by psychologist Alan P. Bell and sociologist Martin S. Weinberg, presents the argument that homosexuality is not inherently pathological and introduces a classification dividing homosexuals into five distinct categories. Together with Homosexuality: An Annotated Bibliography (1972), it forms part of a series culminating in Sexual Preference (1981). Released by the Institute for Sex Research, the publication attracted considerable attention and elicited mixed critiques. It was lauded for confronting prevailing stereotypes and exerted substantial influence, though it faced criticism regarding its sampling techniques and typology, which some reviewers deemed arbitrary. Skeptics also challenged its status as a definitive investigation, pointing out that certain conclusions were either obvious or insufficiently supported by evidence. Subsequent social developments since the 1970s—including the AIDS epidemic and progress within the gay rights movement—have rendered parts of its analysis on gay male sexual behavior outdated.
Summary
Bell and Weinberg highlight that sex researcher Alfred Kinsey had intended to conduct a study on homosexuality to complement his earlier works but passed away before completing it. Following this, the Institute for Sex Research deprioritized homosexuality research until the late 1960s, when the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality, established in 1967, advocated for renewed inquiry. Responding to an invitation to propose a study, the Institute designed a research project aligned with NIMH recommendations, evolving from Bell and Gebhard’s 1967 pilot survey focused on white gay men in Chicago, which incorporated many identical questions.
Throughout development, Bell and Weinberg engaged with experts holding diverse perspectives, including ethologist Frank A. Beach, psychoanalyst Irving Bieber, psychologist Albert Ellis, anthropologist Paul Gebhard, sociologist Laud Humphreys, psychiatrist Judd Marmor, sexologist Wardell Pomeroy, psychiatrist Robert Stoller, and psychologist Clarence Arthur Tripp, among others. They describe their interview protocol as the outcome of extensive deliberations and compromises among these specialists.
The research seeks to depict homosexual sexual conduct, dismantle stereotypes, and analyze connections between sexual lifestyles and socio-psychological adjustment. While recognizing their sample was not representative, Bell and Weinberg contend that representativeness was unnecessary for their goals and stress the importance of distinguishing multiple homosexual subtypes. Homosexualities is part of a series based on what they refer to as the San Francisco Study.
Publication history
Initially published by Simon & Schuster in 1978, Homosexualities was also issued by Macmillan Company of Australia Pty Ltd during the same year. A paperback edition was later released by Touchstone on September 19, 1979.
Overview
The book Homosexualities exerted significant influence and received commendation as a major study. Philosopher Lee C. Rice credited Bell and Weinberg with dispelling myths surrounding gay personalities. Psychologist William Paul and sex researcher James D. Weinrich recognized it as the most extensive study focused exclusively on homosexuality at the time, effectively documenting social diversity despite limitations posed by non-representative sampling. Philosopher Timothy F. Murphy regarded it as a valuable contribution within scientific inquiry despite its constraints. Some conclusions have become outdated due to cultural transformations and the AIDS crisis, as observed by Paul, Weinrich, and philosopher Michael Ruse. Murphy noted that participants matured before the advent of gay liberation movements, which likely influenced their levels of satisfaction with sexual orientation compared to contemporary experiences. Philosopher John Corvino pointed out that although frequently cited to demonstrate promiscuity among gay men, Homosexualities lacked broad sampling; a 1994 sociological study by Edward Laumann presented differing findings and critiqued Bell and Weinberg’s methodology while still appreciating their contribution to study design.
Historian Martin Duberman recalled apprehensions that the research might inadvertently reinforce psychoanalytic theories linking parental relationships to homosexuality; Bell cautiously suggested that estrangement from fathers correlated with homosexuality while estrangement from mothers correlated with heterosexuality. Duberman noted Bell’s discomfort with this conclusion but praised Homosexualities for avoiding etiological claims while remaining substantial in scope. By 2002, Duberman characterized it as one of the most ambitious examinations of male homosexuality ever undertaken, alongside Sexual Preference (1981), which together refuted earlier portrayals of gay men as social outcasts. Bell and Weinberg, along with sociologist Sue Kiefer Hammersmith, framed Sexual Preference as the culmination of a series initiated by Homosexuality: An Annotated Bibliography (1972) and including Homosexualities.
Judith A. Allen and colleagues observed that both Homosexualities and Sexual Preference shifted emphasis from homosexual behavior toward homosexual identity, moving beyond Kinsey’s original framework. Psychologist Jim McKnight stated that this work challenged the Kinsey scale’s conceptualization of bisexuality as merely intermediate between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Philosopher Michael Levin criticized Bell and Weinberg for relying on non-random samples and questioned the credibility of their data, arguing it implied inherent dissatisfaction associated with homosexuality despite contrary claims. He highlighted contradictions concerning health and social patterns, underscoring findings related to regret, limited partner time, and promiscuity as indicators of maladjustment. Psychologists Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse acknowledged the convenience sampling but applied Bell and Weinberg's methodologies when conducting their own research on ex-gay populations.
Gay rights advocate Dennis Altman viewed Homosexualities as representative of research aimed at legitimizing homosexuality without challenging prevailing notions of pathology or psychological authority. He suggested that it provided reassurance for those confronting stigma but remained influenced by traditional assumptions about relationships and happiness. Psychologist John Paul De Cecco dismissed the book for embodying theoretical limitations prevalent in U.S. research since the early 1970s, contrasting it unfavorably with more provocative European thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Guy Hocquenghem, activist Mario Mieli, sexologist Martin Dannecker, and sociologist Jeffrey Weeks.
Reviews
Homosexualities garnered favorable evaluations from novelist Richard Hall in The New Republic, John H. Curtis in the American Journal of Family Therapy, and Clarissa K. Wittenberg in Psychiatric News. It received mixed critiques from Duberman in The New York Times, Stephen F. Morin in Sex Roles, and Russell Boxley alongside Joseph M. Carrier in the Journal of Homosexuality. Conversely, Michael Lynch offered a negative assessment in The Body Politic. Additionally, Norman C. Murphy reviewed the book for The Advocate.
Hall commended the work for challenging the stereotype of homosexuals as "dysfunctionals," considering it valuable for legal professionals, employers, educators, and policymakers. Nevertheless, he regarded the decade-long research aimed at demonstrating that homosexuality is not inherently associated with unhappiness as a "sad commentary" on social science methodologies. He also criticized the book’s dry tone, absence of detailed case studies, and questioned the utility of categorizing homosexuals into distinct types. Curtis acknowledged Bell and Weinberg’s thorough investigation into homosexuality, highlighting their demonstration that no single lifestyle pattern defines the group, and predicted the book would become a foundational reference. Wittenberg described it as an immediate classic deserving of such recognition.
Duberman labeled it "the most ambitious study" of male homosexuality to date but faulted its sampling methods and typologies as overly simplistic and reflective of "sexology's mainstream," presenting a "sanitized" portrayal of gay life that might alienate more radical gay activists. Morin considered it a "long-awaited publication" yet found its typologies arbitrary and misleading, noting that the data primarily reflected San Francisco’s 1969–70 environment. He questioned the sample’s representativeness and accused the authors of drawing conclusions that extended beyond their evidence, describing the work as politically useful but lacking research sophistication.
Boxley viewed the book as an important analytical effort to develop a typology illustrating diversity within the homosexual community but found limited innovation beyond this contribution. He criticized its disproportionate focus on sexual behavior over social experiences, lack of coherence, insufficient examination of social stigma’s effects, and simplistic psychological assessments. Furthermore, he observed that it reinforced stereotypes such as hypersexuality among black homosexual men.
Carrier raised concerns about the emphasis on middle-class American culture and inadequate inclusion of black subcultures but recognized the study’s valuable data contribution to human sexuality research. Lynch argued that the authors prioritized data processing over meaningful interpretation, diverged from Kinsey's findings, and employed value-laden classifications dividing homosexuals into five categories. He criticized their failure to depict common gay experiences and doubted whether the book would influence legislators or community leaders to change negative attitudes.
In summary, despite acclaim for its extensive scope and significant contribution to understanding homosexuality, Homosexualities faced critiques regarding methodological weaknesses, limited sampling diversity, rigid typological frameworks, and insufficient analysis of broader social contexts.
See also
- Biology and sexual orientation
- Environment and sexual orientation
- Gay Science
- Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry
- Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues
Bibliography
- Books
- Journals
- Online articles