The Homosexual Matrix

Summary

Tripp's objective was to describe homosexuality, the social context in which it occurs, and its biological and sociological implications. He acknowledged a debt to previous researchers, including the ethologist Frank A. Beach, the psychologist John Money, the biologist Alfred Kinsey, the sexologists Wardell Pomeroy and Clyde Martin, the anthropologist Paul Gebhard, and the psychologist George Weinberg. Based on his review of the history of sexual laws and customs, Tripp concluded that homosexuality has been called an "aberration" or "perversion" due to moral assumptions rooted partly in religious beliefs.

Exploring the question of a possible biological basis to homosexuality, Tripp focused on the issue of hormones. He argued that the existing evidence is too inconsistent to show any connection between male homosexuality and hormone levels, with studies showing homosexual men as having hormone levels sometimes lower and sometimes higher than those of heterosexual men. Tripp maintained that future attempts to establish a connection would inevitably fail, due to their false underlying assumptions. Based on studies suggesting that sexual patterns depend on learning in primates and other animals, Tripp argued that human sexual orientation also depends on learning. He argued that a majority of people are heterosexual because their upbringing has made them want and expect to be heterosexual, and that while early favorable heterosexual experiences help reinforce heterosexuality, there is an uneven correlation between early sexual experience and adult sexual orientation. Tripp considered the context in which such experiences occurred to be crucial, writing that emotion or a sense of drama is needed to give them significance.

According to Tripp, sexual attraction is encouraged by "tension and distance" between one person and another, and is consequently "seldom aroused and never rewarding unless something in the partner or in the situation itself is viewed as resistant to it." Tripp maintained that societies have increased divisions between men and women partly to satisfy needs inherent in sexual psychology. He suggested that there are often elements of truth to traditional accusations made against women, such as deviousness, and that derogatory descriptions of women serve to increase divisions between the sexes, create tension between them, and make relations between men and women more exciting. Tripp proposed that social bonds between men are not prone to becoming sexual because the similarity and camaraderie between men make them too close to each other for homosexual activities to have any interest. Tripp maintained that heterosexuality and homosexuality generally develop in parallel ways, but that since homosexuality, unlike heterosexuality, is not encouraged and institutionalized by society, its origins are more "scattered and diverse." He reviewed anthropological evidence on homosexuality.

Tripp criticized the work of Sigmund Freud and psychoanalytic theories of the development of homosexuality, writing that while such theories involve ideas that can be seen as fantastic, they can be stated without reference to such "phantasmagoric underpinnings" and have had a lasting popular appeal. Tripp argued that psychoanalytic ideas can be modified and elaborated in such a way that they can be made to provide at least apparent explanations for any case of homosexuality. He rejected the idea that homosexuality is caused by identity problems, fear of the opposite sex, castration anxiety, weak fathers, or the influence of dominant or close-binding mothers. Tripp argued that "the mother-son closeness" sometimes associated with male homosexuality is better interpreted as a result than a cause of homosexuality. Tripp maintained that psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality were never carefully formulated. In his view, the theories are based on the flawed assumption that the "real or imagined negations in a person's life" impair the development of heterosexuality and must be incorrect because "all sexual attractions are based on positive motives". Referring to anthropological evidence, Tripp denied that family structure, or the amount of attention fathers give to their sons, has any effect on the development of homosexuality.

Early puberty and early masturbation were seen by Tripp as important factors in the development of male homosexuality, albeit not direct causes. He maintained that homosexual men tend to start masturbating earlier than heterosexual men, continue to masturbate more extensively for the rest of their lives, and also tend to have a larger than average penis size. Tripp saw early sexual experiences with persons of the same sex as having only a limited role in the development of male homosexuality. While he observed that homosexual men vary in their sexual attitudes, Tripp wrote that, "when two men are excited and unrestrained in their sexual interaction, the fire that is fed from both sides often does whip up levels of eroticism that are rarely reached elsewhere." Tripp considered promiscuity "relatively prevalent" among homosexual men as a group, though he noted that not all homosexual men are promiscuous. Tripp maintained that heterosexual men would be as promiscuous as homosexual men if they had the same level of opportunity. He criticized psychotherapeutic attempts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality, writing that Kinsey and his associates found no evidence of their effectiveness. Tripp argued in favor of social tolerance of homosexuality and of non-conformist behavior in general, arguing that such respect for diversity had many potential benefits to society.

Tripp discussed bisexuality, inversion, transvestism, and transsexualism in relation to homosexuality. Tripp maintained that homosexuality and inversion, though sometimes associated with each other, are distinct phenomena. He argued that there are several different kinds of bisexuality, and that while some bisexuals are simply unconcerned by the gender of their sexual partners, others "rate and choose their male and female partners by applying quite separate sets of criteria", which could be formed by various different processes, including but not limited to early sexual experiences with persons of both sexes, or for a men a special form of machismo.

Mainstream media

Robb McKenzie reviewed The Homosexual Matrix negatively in Library Journal, writing that Tripp only partially succeeded in his goal of describing homosexuality, that his bibliography omitted basic works and included some dubious sources, and that while some of Tripp's observations were thought-provoking, others were ludicrous. He also described the book as a rambling, awkwardly written, and poorly organized anecdotal survey.

The psychoanalyst Herbert Hendin reviewed The Homosexual Matrix negatively in The New York Times, calling the book pseudoscience and Tripp an "erudite con man" who lacked impartiality and had a "bias toward homosexuality". Hendin argued that Tripp saw homosexuality as superior to heterosexuality and sexual passion as dependent upon anger, mistakenly drew conclusions about heterosexuality from observations about homosexual behavior, and had a distorted view of sexual history and a negative view of women. Hendin wrote that Tripp's conclusion that homosexuality is not related to fear or anger toward women, family relationships, or a reflection of confusion over sexual identity, was baseless. His review was followed by letters of protest from the historian Martin Duberman, Pomeroy, Weinberg, and others, to which Hendin replied with a rebuttal.

J. M. Cameron reviewed The Homosexual Matrix negatively in The New York Review of Books, calling Tripp "vulgar" and prejudiced and characterizing Tripp's evidence as "largely literary." Cameron criticized Tripp for treating the Kinsey Reports as authoritative, writing that they had been "critically studied for almost thirty years" and were out of date, for being careless in his discussion of history, and for focusing mainly on male homosexuality and neglecting lesbianism. Cameron was convinced by Tripp's argument that strains and tensions are necessary in a relationship to keep the partners interested in each other, and found his discussion of psychotherapy insightful.

The journalist Philip Nobile wrote in New York magazine that The Homosexual Matrix was "exceedingly controversial" and that the study "completed Kinsey's work" on homosexuality. Following Tripp's death in 2003, The New York Times reported that author Larry Kramer and the historian Jonathan Ned Katz had praised The Homosexual Matrix, Kramer calling it the first book from a "reputable source" that "dared to openly speak of homosexuality as a healthy occurrence", and Katz commenting that prior to its publication "you could count on one hand the books on the subject that had any intellectual substance". The novelist Gore Vidal called it "ground-breaking" in Vanity Fair.

Gay media

Gay publications in which The Homosexual Matrix received reviews included The Advocate, where it was discussed by author George Whitmore, and The Body Politic, where it was criticized by Michael Lynch, who wrote that while initially delighted by the work, he later concluded that it is a "deceptive book inadequate to its task" that the gay movement should not endorse. In his view, Tripp made many claims without empirical evidence and neglected lesbianism and female sexuality in general. Lynch argued that Tripp's understanding of sexual relations between men and women, and his account of how tension between the sexes creates erotic excitement, were influenced by biological determinism. Lynch found Tripp's discussion of why societies have increased divisions between the sexes interesting, but also poorly worked out. Lynch accepted Tripp's view that sexual orientation depends on learning, but disagreed with the details of his account, and argued that Tripp's theories are "linked to psychoanalytic assumptions." Lynch accused Tripp of seeking to legitimize homosexuality "by making it bland", criticized Whitmore for defending him, and expressed partial agreement with Hendin's review.

Lynch wrote in 1977 that The Homosexual Matrix "had been widely criticized for many reasons", including for largely ignoring the gay rights movement and for expressing a negative view of women. According to Lynch, Tripp stated in an interview with Keith Howes in Gay News that he had not written about the gay liberation movement because he did not not know enough about it to be able to discuss the subject, that he was amazed at the accusation of sexism directed against The Homosexual Matrix, and that he believed the "gay press" had reacted with embarrassment to his book, while Howes suggested that Tripp was hurt by the negative reaction to his book from some gay people.

Phil Derbyshire dismissed The Homosexual Matrix in Gay Left, arguing that it was based in "bourgeois social science" and that Tripp did not appreciate the role of sexism in supporting taboos against homosexuality, which he viewed through "the ideological forms of advanced capitalism" and therefore misunderstood as a "unitary and trans-historical category", that Tripp had a sexist focus on gay men and mostly ignored lesbians, that he viewed male and female sexuality as "biological givens", and ignored alternative feminist and Marxist accounts of the oppression of gay men and lesbians. Derbyshire contrasted Tripp's work unfavorably with that of Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault.

Author Lewis Gannett, writing in The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, credited Tripp with writing "the first work to explain in cogent psychological terms why homosexuality is not a developmental failure to achieve heterosexuality." According to Gannett, Tripp's view that "gay people and straight people develop their orientations in exactly the same ways" appalled "many clinicians and much of the general public", while Tripp's message, based on "impeccable science", that "homosexuality is an integral and natural component of human sexuality" made an enormous impact, with Pomeroy calling The Homosexual Matrix "the best book I have ever read on the subject of homosexuality". Gannett wrote that the book influenced prominent sex researchers, critics, and the public, and sold nearly half a million copies. Paul Varnell, writing in the Chicago Free Press, described The Homosexual Matrix as one of the ten best non-fiction books relating to homosexuality.

Scientific and academic journals

The psychoanalyst Arno Karlen reviewed The Homosexual Matrix negatively in The Journal of Sex Research, writing that Tripp made numerous unjustified claims, such as that homosexual men tend to have a larger than average penis size and that there are no confirmed cases of homosexuals being converted to heterosexuality through therapy. Karlen accused Tripp of trying to normalize or exalt homosexuality, and denigrate heterosexuality and women, and those who endorsed his work of politicizing sex research. The psychoanalyst Charles W. Socarides, writing in the American Journal of Psychiatry, criticized Tripp for arguing that homosexuality is not pathological and presenting it as being preferable to heterosexuality, for incorrectly claiming that homosexual men tend to undergo puberty early and to have a larger than average penis size, and for making "slurs" against therapists who attempted to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality. He considered the book harmful for encouraging homosexuals not to undergo treatment.

The Homosexual Matrix received two reviews in the Journal of Homosexuality, one by David A. Begelman, and the other by Fritz A. Fluckiger. Begelman gave the book a mixed assessment, calling Tripp a skillful writer who was learned on the subject of homosexuality, but whose objectivity was nevertheless open to question. Fluckiger called the book "easily the most provocative work on sexuality to have appeared in a long time" and credited Tripp with offering a powerful challenge to established views about homosexuality and showing command of a range of data from many fields. Fluckiger maintained that Tripp offered the most novel account of the way in which behavioral expression communicates internal states since Charles Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), but considered his most original contribution to be his explanation of how erotic feeling depends on "resistance", which might consist of any of several impediments to easy access to sexual satisfaction.

Harriet Whitehead reviewed The Homosexual Matrix negatively in feminist journal Signs, calling the book a "rambling mixture of personal observation and popularized social science". Whitehead wrote that despite some "more promising kernels of thought", Tripp was at fault in maintaining that "the various forms of human sexual behavior as well as the various human reactions to these forms are reducible to a simple set of psychological imperatives." Whitehead described Tripp's model of heterosexual relations as sexist, criticized him for focusing only on male homosexuality while claiming to discuss homosexuality in general, and noted that he barely mentioned the gay liberation movement.

Gannett called The Homosexual Matrix a "pioneering book" in an obituary of Tripp published in the Journal of Homosexuality.

Evaluations in books

The anthropologist Donald Symons, writing in The Evolution of Human Sexuality (1979), described Tripp's hypothesis that erotic feeling depends on resistance as plausible, arguing that females may have been a scare sexual resource in natural human habitats and that selection favors the experience of pleasure not only in consummation but in the effort to consummate. Symons endorsed Tripp's view that sexual encounters between men often involve intense levels of eroticism seldom reached elsewhere. The psychologist Alan P. Bell and the sociologists Martin S. Weinberg and Sue Kiefer Hammersmith, writing in Sexual Preference (1981), observed that Tripp ridiculed the way in which theorists have attributed the development of male homosexuality to "almost any kind of maternal relationship". They considered Tripp correct to caution against adding further "post hoc" explanations of male homosexuality, but noted that some studies suggest that "prehomosexual" boys have atypical relationships with their mothers.

Tripp's second edition in 1987 discussed the first edition's reception. He wrote that no sentence in it stirred such a "hateful reaction" as Tripp's comment that, "When two men are excited and unrestrained in their sexual interaction, the fire that is fed from both sides often does whip up levels of eroticism that are very rarely reached elsewhere." Tripp accused his critic Hendin of using that sentence to wrongly portray him as maintaining that homosexuality is an inherently superior form of sexual expression. The sociologist Jonathan Dollimore described Tripp's account of psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality as an over-simplification bordering on parody.

The jurist Richard Posner saw Tripp as reviving psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing's theory that masturbation helps to cause homosexuality by fixating a boy on the male genitals, based on evidence that homosexuals begin masturbating earlier than heterosexuals. Posner criticized the theory on the grounds that homosexuality and early masturbation could both be effects of whatever factor might be responsible for causing homosexuality. The geneticist Dean Hamer wrote that the Homosexual Matrix was influential and that Tripp provided the clearest articulation of the social learning theory of sexual orientation. However, Hamer found the theory itself implausible, and rejected it on numerous grounds, arguing that it is inconsistent with anthropological evidence and human evolutionary history, and fails to explain the existence of homosexuality.

Neil Woodward wrote that The Homosexual Matrix is sometimes considered "the most influential and enlightening work on homosexuality in the modern literature". Duberman, writing in his 1996 autobiography, described Tripp's book as "rich and (especially in its misogynistic passages) flawed". The gay scholar John Lauritsen commended it as a useful work on homosexuality. The queer theorist David M. Halperin noted that Tripp expands on Kinsey's observation that "inversion and homosexuality are two distinct and not always correlated types of behavior."