LAMBDA \Jolo 1 no
page: four
October, 1976
THE HOMOSEXUAL MATRIX
by, C. A. Tripp
C.A. Tripp's THE HOMOSEXUAL MATRIX suffers from a sneer-
face liberalism, all too familiar in the realm of literature
on homosexuality* The liberalism, as well as the analysis,
stops at the surface of homosexual behav/ior. While expounding
enlightened attitudes toward sexual variation (some, not all),
he fails to probe deeply either the underpinning of those
variations of the social opprobrium they have elicited. The
result is that Tripp upholds, perhaps unconsciously, dominant
social mores and conservative myths.
According to Tripp, if we are limited in our ability to
love someone and to enjoy sex simultaneously without sacrific
ing either, we are almost incapable of experiencing sexual or
amorous feelings for both sexes equally. Unless, of course,
(here Tripp elaborates sexual class fantasy surfaces) one is
a lower class male (LCM) who is willing to "stick it in
anywhere." Tripp mentions so often the LCM’s habit of laying
back and letting the middle class queer fellate him, that it
is embarrassingly like sneaking a peek into Tripp's masturba-
tory diary. Perhaps Tripp is correct when he assess American
sexual alternatives as a "fork in the road," which inhibits
the potential for reconciling bisexuality. However, he does
not attempt to understand the origins or reprecussions of
these limited options, accepting and explaining "what is" by
his hazy theory of "elaborately evolved sexual value system."
Tripp relies heavily on biology and anthropology. This
is one of the rewarding aspects of the book -- finding out
what other cultures and species do about the "Big H." It is
loaded with ammunition for those who argue that homosexuality
is unnatural. But in drawing parallels between species and
stressing the biological side of man, he reduces the human
being to an animal with a highly developed cerebral cortex,
and which differentiates man from other species. Perhaps
Tripp's background as a sex researcher explains the concen
tration on behavioral aspects of homosexuality: a third of
the book deals with inversion, the "psychology" of effeminancy
(from a male-chauvinist bias); a rather silly (although
academically elaborate) differentiation between Nelly, Swish,
Blase, and Camp; and sexual techniques.
Even the section on the Politics of Homosexuality ignores
its political and social remifications, Discussion is limited
to the risks and trials of high-ranking homosexuals, or the
success and adaptability on the upper echelons of diplomacy.
It would seem, given the intent of the book "to.draw a picture
not only of homosexuality but a' social :rnatri5’, " that ;:there
'(continued on'page 5)