In the mid-twentieth century the people of the United States witnessed massive social changes, changes that exercised a potent effect upon the way Americans understood and experienced sex. Mobilization for war, economic prosperity, and urban expansion were but a few changes during this period with major implications for American personal life. One major development was the emergence of experts, who used ideas from nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century sexologists to impose standards determining which sexual practices should be considered healthy, and which should be considered unhealthy. The role of professionals expanded during World War II, and the development of an ideology of homosexuality in the United States military presents a revealing portrait of the growing influence of professionals during this period. Prior to World War II, the Armed Forces' policies on sex imposed penalties for the act of sodomy among military personnel, but paid little attention to the sexual orientation of members. Sodomy was defined only as an act, not as an indicator a person's being. During World War II, however, psychiatrists and military administrators stopped focusing policy on the crime of sodomy. Instead they began to categorize homosexuals as medically diagnosed people who should be discharged or hospitalized because they were sick. No act of sodomy was now required for dismissal, only evidence that the individual was committed to this newly defined orientation. Reports, proposed lectures, and essays on homosexuality written during this period by military leaders reveal that the concept of homosexuality was an ideological construction of the military that served purposes of power and it owed its conceptual philosophy to ideas proposed by psychiatrists. Psychiatrists who worked with the military used homosexuality as a vehicle for influence within the institution and were willing to exploit heterosexual fear of homosexuals to expand their professional positions. The ideology constructed from these psychiatrists' ideas generated a lasting legacy within the institution and drastic consequences for individuals defined as deviant. This effect continues to be felt today. Building on the work of Michel Foucault, recent scholars such as Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, David Halperin, and Lillian Faderman have shown that the psychiatric discourse on the homosexual as a distinct species of person began to emerge along with the actual word homosexual during the nineteenth century.[1] This discourse began in Europe with the writings of sexologists such as Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Havelock Ellis.[2] The work of these men, who were interested in the problem of "sexual inversion," created a new interest in sexual preference, which had not been explicitly emphasized in Western history before. They argued that sexual inversion was a congenital anomaly that men or women were born with and contended that this condition was pathological. As a result of their work, between 1898 and 1908 more than a thousand articles and books were written in Germany alone on the new topic of homosexuality.[3]

After the turn of the century, Sigmund Freud became a popular figure in the world of behavioral sciences, and his ideas largely captured professional American fascination with the idea of homosexuality. Freud argued that homosexuality was a sign of arrested psychological development and a failure to develop normally due to childhood trauma.[4] His work therefore created a split with the previous discourse of sexologists who believed that homosexuality was an inherent trait. Freudians now viewed homosexuality as a behavior that was developed socially.

During the mid-twentieth century a military policy emerged that actively sought out homosexuals for exclusion; this policy owes its conceptual philosophy to psychiatrists such as Kraft-Ebing, Ellis, and Freud. It was their ideas that constructed the philosophy of homosexuality as sickness, and their ideas were transmitted later into military policy by contemporary psychiatrists of the forties and fifties. The concepts of Freud, Kraft-Ebing, and Ellis were often merged, confused, and expanded upon by professionals of the mid-twentieth century, but they also included consistent themes shared by all sexologists who followed their thinking. Homosexuality, they believed, was a distinct, observable disease, and it was in the interest of society for the sick to seek treatment.

Military psychiatrists during the forties and fifties who advised administrators on homosexuals were engaged in the same pursuit as psychiatrists throughout the nation during this period. They believed that, in the interest of "mental health" the practice of psychology should be broadly infused into national and local social agencies. Ellen Herman has recently written a history of the development of psychology in American society during this period and she describes how psychiatrists and psychologists became authoritative figures, professionally and culturally.[5] She argues that psychologists believed they should influence public policy as well as continue traditional practice with patients. Her work asserts that the military institution held particularly high potential for social intervention by psychiatrists. The psychological conditions created by wartime stress resulted in disruptions with the potential to ruin military missions. Because of this threat, as they prepared for war military administrators vigorously sought out psychiatrists. Psychiatrists therefore became central figures in developing policies to maintain morale and prevent psychiatric casualties among personnel.

World War II, with its vast enlistment of soldiers and potential for casualties, offered psychiatrists their first opportunity to apply their ideas on a mass scale. Traditionally the field of psychiatry had been used exclusively to treat extreme cases of mental illness, but war created circumstances where exterior psychological strain created what psychiatrists called "normal neurosis."[6] Along with this condition, the "homosexual problem" was a territory where psychiatrists could present themselves as scientific authorities who could help the military in policymaking. By articulating a concept of homosexuality as sickness, psychiatrists claimed to be interested in promoting enlightened policies that prevented homosexuals from being incarcerated, but their motivations for expanding their influence within the institution at the expense of homosexuals should be considered. Psychiatrists Clements C. Fry and Edna G. Rostow pointed out in a report on homosexuality used by the Surgeon General's Office that the expanded use of psychology would be a growing necessity for selective service to scrutinize incoming recruits, whether the purpose of the policy was to protect homosexuals or to punish them. They assert:

"judgment as to the rejectability of the homosexual, both as a potential officer and as a soldier in the ranks, will require greater scrutiny of the candidates from the point of view of the total personality. . . . Such a procedure seems to be indicated whatever interpretation of the regulation is accepted-whether it be taken as a rule to protect the homosexual, the other soldiers, the level of performance in the army, or whether it is regarded as a form of punishment for outcasts comparable to the rule against criminals."[7]

Psychiatrists would use their skills of analysis to help the military define a policy for homosexuals regardless of how the military chose to use their assistance, likely because of their desire to expand their work within military institutions.

Psychiatrists expanded their influence within the military by presenting themselves as professional specialists who could define the nature of homosexuality and identify "true homosexuals." Psychiatrists such as Lt. Col. Loeser, who worked for the Army's 36th Station Hospital in England, argued that his research revealed that homosexuals could be identified by psychiatrists through "their unmistakable feminine traits," "the homosexual lingo," and the tendency of homosexuals to group together.[8] Many psychiatrists claimed that they could determine who was a homosexual even without any accusations or admissions of homosexual activity. Clements C. Fry and Edna G. Rostow reported in their study of homosexuals that individuals who were categorized as "probable homosexuals" due to lack of evidence of homosexual activity were in fact "from a psychiatric point of view undoubtedly homosexual." They defended this assertion by declaring that "a psychiatrist who lives and works in a university inevitably knows a good deal about it . . . from observation, from general information and from particular patients he learns about homosexual groups." In a further push for the importance of psychiatrists to the military institution, the psychiatrists concluded their study by saying: "it may be useful at this point to mention that the psychiatrist working with university students is in a particularly advantageous position for observing the sexual development of homosexuals."[9] The point is certainly useful when the professional ambitions of these psychiatrists are considered.

Psychiatrists may have agreed about the usefulness of their expertise to the military, but the nature of homosexuality was an issue upon which they disagreed, just as Freud and the earlier nineteenth-century sexologists had. Questions were raised regarding the permanency, the origins, and the variability of the homosexual illness, and they were addressed along the same philosophical lines as those of previous sexologists. They all believed that a person existed who could be described as a "true homosexual," but whether due to physiological or sociological circumstances remained a point of contention. A divide in thought occurred between those who saw the disease as an inherent condition and those who followed Freudian thought and viewed it as the result of developmental childhood trauma. Many believed, with Freud, that sexuality developed in stages and that homosexuality was a phenomenon of paralyzed growth. They suggested that sexuality evolved from an adolescent period, when homoerotic impulses were considered normal, to a mature stage of sexuality, when the adult responds with erotic impulses towards the opposite sex. Homosexuals were characterized by these experts as people frozen in a state of childlike sexual immaturity, with little hope for further development.[10] Another group of psychiatrists shared the view of nineteenth-century sexologists, who believed that the sickness was due to a congenital anomaly.[11]

Despite this traditional divide, however, the two groups shared many perspectives. Psychiatrists frequently argued that homosexuals suffered from an inescapable moral vacancy. Homosexuals were to be pitied, but psychiatrists also warned that they posed a threat to society. A consistent theme emerges among the two groups of the homosexual as predator. Psychiatrists also frequently described another component of the disease of homosexuality: gender inversion. When psychiatrists described homosexuality among men, they almost universally assumed that the male homosexual had an inverted gender, and the concept of gender inversion was applied to homosexual women as well, beginning in the late 1950s. Whether gender inversion originated as a latent condition or a symptom of social trauma was still debated.

Any mention of women, and how the issue related to them, was omitted from nearly all reports written during the forties on the nature of homosexuality. Women were mentioned more frequently in reports during the fifties, but still rarely. Homosexuality was presented within an almost entirely male context. The absence of women in studies on homosexuality in the forties may be explained in several ways. Historian Estelle B. Freedman has identified a broad national phenomenon during the mid-twentieth century which marked a shift in popular attitudes regarding male and female sexuality, and this may explain the absence of women in these studies.[12] Freedmen argues that public interest in sexuality had shifted away from the previous Victorian emphasis on female purity to a new fixation on the uncontrollable forces of male sexuality. Male sexuality was now considered a volatile and uncontrollable force, while female sexuality was considered stable and less threatening. The fact that military psychiatrists and administrators during the forties seem to have restricted their attention to male homosexuality may be a reflection of these changes, but the absence of women in the studies may also be due to other factors. Military psychiatrists and administrators may have perceived the inverted gender of women as conducive with the military mission, while the inverted gender of men was perceived as counterproductive. Effeminacy among men may have been perceived as a threat to the military mission because it was associated with weakness. Female masculinity, on the other hand, might have been considered appropriate to the military mission.[13] Whatever the explanation, the studies on homosexuality were disproportionately fixated upon men during this period.

The disease of homosexuality was described as a sickness of gender inversion, but the concept of the disease was also expanded upon. In a study conducted by Lt. Col. Loeser, homosexuals were presented within four categories that incorporated both the nineteenth-century latent invert model and the twentieth-century Freudian model. Homosexuals could be categorized as "endocrine," meaning that they had a "glandular dysfunction" which created abnormal amounts of female hormones that resulted in the biological "inversion" of the person's gender. A second category was the "psychological" homosexual, whose inversion took place due to environmental factors. According to Loeser, homosexual men who were either raised with no fathers, despised their mothers, were "brought up as females by their mothers," or were raised in families with many sisters could point to these factors as causes for their sickness. A third category was "regressive heterosexual men" who turned to homosexuality due to feelings of sexual inadequacy, fearfulness in the presence of women, or out of neurotic compulsive behavior. A fourth category Loeser described as "facultative," indicative of a person who could function as a heterosexual or homosexual. He says "the orgasm however achieved is the primary goal for this person," and Loeser describes him as psychopathic and devoid of spiritual values.[14] From Loeser's perspective the clinical definition of homosexual illness is therefore characterized by a variety of biological, psychological, and sociological causes. According to him, no one type of homosexual exists.

In contrast to Loeser's position, Lieutenant Herbert Greenspan and Commander John D. Campbell concluded in research published in 1945, "the homosexual is an exclusive personality type."[15] They proposed that "the homosexual is an individual endowed with sexual desires directed towards members of the same sex and possessing characteristic psychic and physical manifestations of the opposite sex." In their view, homosexuality was a "congenital anomaly" rather than a disease, and it manifested itself in the form of an inverted gender. They directly cite Krafft-Ebing and Ellis in their work, following the nineteenth-century German tradition. According to their theory, homosexuals who discovered their condition late in life had always been homosexual; they were simply latent homosexuals. A latent homosexual child could be identified by behavior such as a boy's interest in girls games, an "abnormal" maternal attachment, or the demonstration of "a spirit of comradeship with women." According to these researchers, homosexuality should be seen as a "regrettable sexual anomaly" and not "an acquired vice."

In a study led by Fry and Rostow, researchers were more cautious about defining the etiological nature of homosexuality, but they nevertheless presented extensive examples of individuals to construct profiles of homosexual types. Along with the "probable homosexual,"' who was from a psychiatric point of view "undoubtedly homosexual," they also used the examples of eighty-one men to create the profile of a "definite homosexual." This person, they argued, was a man with an inverted gender, whether through biological or environmental factors, who was "hard," "cold" and a "mischievous manipulator." Many of these men, according to the psychiatrists, "sought to win or seduce others, playing on the emotions and sexual responses of still influenceable people." Fry and Rostow presented another category of individual who stood in relation to the definite homosexual: The person who fears he is homosexual. Those who experienced "fear of homosexuality" may, according to the psychiatrists, have been latent homosexuals or they may have been heterosexuals experiencing fear of rejection from members of the opposite sex. Fry and Rostow warn, however, that persons within this category are in danger, and only the psychotherapist could help them. Heterosexuals who fear that they might be homosexual, according to Fry and Rostow, might fall "prey to homosexual influence" unless they sought psychotherapy and became "re-educated."[16] Psychiatrists therefore contributed to an ideological profile of the homosexual as predator who might seduce young and confused heterosexual men, as they asserted once again the importance of the psychiatrist's role. Psychiatrists who portrayed homosexuals as predators were willing to conjure up exotic images of debauchery and pederasty in their portrayals of homosexuals, which raises questions about their motives. Fry and Rostow argued in a report from the Surgeon's General's office that homosexuality can be an exotic group phenomenon similar to a cult. They say:

"The groups are almost like clubs, offering many attractions to members. There are usually a few people, at least, who are wealthy and share the conveniences and pleasures of money with others. Their own parties are on a lavish scale with exotic touches; at one such party, for example, naked Negro boys carried in the platters of food. Once a student accepts his place in such a group, therapeutic relation with a psychiatrist occurs rarely . . . until they suffer and seek help in desperation."[17]

In another report they expanded upon the theme of the homosexual as "exotic predator" and suggested that homosexuals were threats to children:

"There is adequate testimony to the fact that homosexuals often choose vocations which place them in positions of responsibility with young people of the same sex. Individuals may then be introduced to homosexual activity in schools, camps, clubs and other recreational or educational groups at comparatively early ages; and at later ages in ships, prisons, and so forth."[18]

These descriptions created an image of the homosexual who was a threat to society. The threat demanded attention or the price could be terrible. The psychiatrists could hardly be more alarmist than to portray homosexuals as exotic predators who threatened children. And these psychiatrists capitalized on heterosexual fear of homosexuals to advance their professional position. At the same time they were portraying homosexuals in this manner, they were waging a campaign to include psychiatric screening for new recruits which would include screening for homosexuality. By 1941 psychiatrists had convinced the military of the need for psychiatric screening, and the administrative apparatus for excluding homosexuals was arranged. Eighteen million men were screened to determine their sexuality by the mid-forties.[19]

The greatest contribution that psychiatrists made towards construction of an ideology of homosexuality in the military was to grant scientific legitimacy to a systematic policy of domination. Sociologist John Thompson has proposed a useful definition of the term "ideology": "meaning in the service of power." He writes, "to study ideology is to study ways in which meaning serves to establish and sustain relations of domination."[20] If ideology is viewed as Thompson describes it, then the uses of psychiatric ideas and their participation in the act of domination are more important for understanding institutional ideology than claimed intentions of "helping homosexuals." The meaning of homosexuality, articulated by psychiatrists as sickness, was used to establish a power relationship between those who were deemed normal and those who were considered different. The concept of the homosexual, who possessed an inverted gender and uncontrollable desires, displayed a demeanor of cold superiority and neurotic depression, and was an exotic predator, was constructed by psychiatrists and used by administrators to exclude a group of people from the military. Furthermore, the concept was constructed as a problem that only the psychiatrists could solve. Psychiatrists exploited homosexuals, promoting their own interests within the institution. Their work was used with devastating consequences.

Evidence of psychiatrists' conceptual influence within the military is apparent in proposed lecture programs prepared for recruits, officers, and military academy students, and in the language of written policies on homosexuality. The lectures, some of which were never actually delivered to recruits, present lengthy and explicit perspectives that military administrators held about homosexuality, reflecting their thought processes surrounding the issue. More research needs to be undertaken to determine how involved the writers of these lectures were in military policymaking, but as institutional devices designed to educate members about the nature of homosexuality, they indicate the meaning of homosexuality for military administrators. The language, concepts, and characterization of homosexuality presented in these lectures, as well as the language of military policies, demonstrates a conceptual relationship to the prevailing psychiatric discourse.

The military lectures in particular contain language that bears a striking resemblance to ideas proposed by psychiatrists. Most of the lectures, for instance, followed the psychiatric view that homosexuality was a sickness. Captain G. N. Raines, who gave lectures to Naval medical school students, made connections in his lectures between homosexuality and psychosis. In his course he would present a diagram of the spectrum of sexuality which ranged from the "supernormal" ("completely intolerant of homosexuality; slugs when propositioned or approached") to the "overt homosexual" who borders on "schizophrenia."[21] Most of the lectures contain similar references to homosexuality as a pathology, reflecting psychiatric thought.

Another frequent theme of the lectures that reveals psychiatric influence was the consistent reappearance of the Freudian idea that homosexuality is a frozen stage of sexual development. One lecture suggested that "homosexuals are people who have never matured, they have never grown up." The lectures also followed the psychiatrists' use of the concept of inversion by describing homosexuals by their "prissy way of walking, use of cosmetics, and affected manner of speaking."[22]

Administrators followed the psychiatrist's lead in another way as well by adopting the theme of the homosexual as predator. They extended this idea, however, to propose that individuals could acquire the disease of homosexuality through contamination. They concluded that the risks of large numbers of homosexuals and the possible contamination of others made inclusion a "highly undesirable measure." They declared in addition that homosexuals had no control over their sexual drive, arguing that like "drug addicts" homosexuals were "unable to control their urges and desires." The predatory homosexual is connected in this context even with rape and violence. The lectures discuss "fiendish and horrible sex crimes against men, women and oftimes small children" and also mention that "Oftimes the person who commits such an act is found to be a homosexual."[23] They imbued the threat with apocalyptic undertones by arguing that the homosexual was a threat to society that could destroy it like a cancer. One proposed lecture declared that "all nations who have given way to the practice of homosexuality have fallen."[24] Administrators therefore expanded upon the concept of the homosexual by adding components of violence, immorality, uncontrollable sexual impulses, and a potential threat to society. But woven into these new fabrications were the central ideas proposed by psychiatrists: homosexuals were sick, morally vacant, predatory, and in need of help.

The problem of homosexuality was applied to women in the lectures of this period in much the same way as to men. The female homosexual was characterized, like the male homosexual, as a predator who might "lure you into involvement in a homosexual act." The concept of inversion was also applied. A woman who was "domineering, severely bossy, or mentally cruel" could be a potential homosexual. The pitiful nature of homosexuality was also articulated in these lectures. The lectures proposed that "shame, confusion and fear follow involvement in the homosexual act." Following Freudian sexual development theories, the lectures also argued that the woman homosexual "has not learned to appreciate the normal rewards and satisfaction of maturity." Concepts of female sexuality entailed distinct differences, however. Causes attributed to female homosexuality were "curiosity" and "boredom." Other reasons were given as well, such as the ability to have sex without the fear of pregnancy. Administrators also argued that a woman might surrender to the influence of homosexuality because she has been "exploited," due to her emotional and physical needs.[25]

Like male homosexuals, however, women were most vulnerable when the accusation was made that they did not represent the gender roles assigned to them by their society. One lecturer would remind women:

"I don't feel I have to emphasize to you how delicate a structure is a woman's good name, or how easy it is to tarnish it or destroy it. A single act or an association may brand a woman as a sexual pervert. To get entangled with homosexuality means the possible destruction of her social life."

"The creator has endowed the bodies of women with the noble mission of bringing human life into the world. Any woman who violates this great trust by participating in homosexuality not only degrades herself socially but also destroys the purpose for which god created her."[26]

Women who succumbed to homosexuality would be isolated from more than society and God, however. The lecturers argued that a woman's entire character would be destroyed by homosexuality. The lecturers declared: "Homosexuality destroys a woman's personal integrity. . . . she slowly deteriorates in character, losing her power of will."[27] Thus, in the military ideology of homosexuality developed after 1950, the basic components of sickness, gender inversion, moral vacancy, a predatory nature, and the potential for social destruction were presented as components of both female and male homosexuals.

The ideas of psychiatrists that influenced the thinking of administrators potently affected military men and women. Policies addressing homosexuality created during World War II present a practical and philosophical departure from prior policies. Homosexuality had previously been dealt with in the military as a legal issue of degeneracy and not a medical issue. Allan Berube argues, "from the days of the Revolutionary War, the Army and Navy had targeted the act of sodomy, not homosexual persons, as criminal." During World War II, however, psychiatrists began to work more closely with government agencies to challenge the view that sodomy between men was a legal problem that should be punished by incarceration. They replaced this view with the medical perspective that homosexuality was a sickness and the homosexual should be hospitalized for observation and treatment. They pushed for a campaign to screen service members to determine their sexuality.[28] This "enlightened" perspective helped create a policy which shifted administrative emphasis from incarceration for sodomy, although it remained illegal, to immediate dishonorable discharge of self-proclaimed or identifiable homosexuals.

This policy change began including homosexuality among military categories of mental illness. In May 1941 the Army Surgeon's General Office issued a revised version of Selective Service Circular No. 1, which included "homosexual persons" among those to be rejected because of "psychopathic disorders." In January of the same year the Navy issued its own directive for eliminating the "neuropsychiatrically unfit . . . whose sexual behavior is such that it would endanger or disturb the morale of the military unit." Homosexuals were singled out to be discharged from all branches of the service, after War Department Circular No. 3 was issued 3 January 1944 to all military departments.[29]

All of these changes in policy were structured to address the medical problem of homosexuality rather than the legal problem of sodomy, and the language of the new policies implies the influence of psychiatrists. Draft regulations that described homosexuality, for instance, read:

"Persons habitually or occasionally engaged in homosexual or other perverse sexual practices are unsuitable for military service and will be excluded. Feminine bodily characteristics, effeminacy in dress or manner, or a patulous rectum are not consistently found in such persons, but where present should lead to careful psychiatric examination. If an individual has a record as a pervert he will be rejected."[30]

War Department Circular No. 3 stated that the person who admitted homosexual "tendencies" but who had committed no homosexual acts could be considered "latent" and would be discharged upon this basis. Policymakers had thus incorporated the medical concept of the latent and the true homosexual into their program and embedded the concept of the unchangeable invert in their descriptions of homosexual effeminacy. They also stated that the homosexual was an individual who needed to be removed for psychiatric treatment, which shows that they viewed homosexuality as a medical problem.

The administrative shift to a category of homosexuality from a legal act of sodomy was followed by a great expansion in the numbers of people who were incarcerated or discharged for homosexual activity. Berube has demonstrated that, while prior to World War II, only several hundred servicemen were convicted and incarcerated for sodomy, after policies added homosexuality to the list of psychiatric diseases, more than four thousand sailors and five thousand soldiers were hospitalized, diagnosed as sexual psychopaths, or discharged from the service for homosexuality between 1941 and 1945 alone.[31]

This shift in conceptualization produced a devastating effect on those designated sick by the new group of professionals. A decade later, in 1957, the Navy issued a confidential report on homosexuality that showed a change of perception. Administrators acknowledged that prior assertions were being re-examined. The report states:

The concept of homosexuality as a clinical entity has been discarded. Homosexual behavior now is considered symptomatic behavior. . . . At this time little is known about the physiological and physical conditions which may contribute to the development of homosexual behavior.[32]

Yet the "symptomatic behavior" was still considered to be a "personality disorder" and the complexity of the homosexual "problem" only led administrators once again to conclude that "thorough, comprehensive psychiatric evaluation is needed" to assist in confronting the homosexual problem. Thus the report reaffirmed the need for an exclusionary policy. Psychiatrists and military administrators approached the issue in the same ways they had previously, promoting their own interests. Their ideology had changed very little. Homosexuality meant sickness. This meaning made psychiatrists the most qualified professionals to identify and explain the sickness; it gave administrators the opportunity to establish a power relationship between the normal and the deviant. Professionals were finding new strength in a changing nation, and they identified and excluded homosexuals for interests of their own.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Since that time lesbians and gay men have made great progress towards establishing themselves within the body politic as a legitimate minority community deserving equality under the law.[33] However, these gains highlight the role of the psychiatric profession over the last century in determining the status of homosexuality. Nineteenth-century sexologists first categorized homosexuality as a disease; Freud carried on the tradition and expanded it in new directions; and American psychiatric professionals transmitted similar ideas and affected policymakers and educators within the military and other institutions. The striking impact of these ideas in shaping military policy continues today. Use of ambiguous psychiatric categories to shape military policy has created an administrative crisis. Today's "don't ask, don't tell" policy cries for return to a time when the closet door was more securely shut and no one questioned thorny assumptions about what constitutes sickness and health.

---

Nathan Purkiss completed a master of arts in history at SFSU in Fall 1996, specializing in the history of homosexuality in Europe and the Mediterranean from antiquity to the Renaissance. He earned a bachelor of arts from New York University in 1994. Purkiss currently works as a research assistant to Allan Berube on the upcoming book, Shipping Out; he hopes to pursue a Ph.D. program when that project is finished.

---

1. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990); David Halperin, One Hundred years of Homosexuality. (New York: Routledge, 1990); Lillian Faderman, Surpassing the Love of Men (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1981).

2. Faderman, 239-50.

3. Ibid., 248

4. Ibid., 314-31

5. Ellen Herman, The Romance of American Psychology: Political Culture in the Age of Experts ( Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995).

6. Ibid.

7. Clements C. Fry and Edna G. Rostow, "Some Observations on Homosexuality in Military Service," Army Surgeon's General Committee on Medical Research Office of Scientific Research and Development Report: 1945, 66.

8. Lewis H. Loeser, M.C. "The Sexual Psychopath in the Military Service." American Journal of Psychiatry 102 (July 1945): 96-97.

9. Fry and Rostow, "Observations," 25.

10. Ibid., 43

11. Herbert Greenspan and John D. Campbell, "The Homosexual as a Personality Type," American Journal of Psychiatry 101 (June 1945): 682.

12. Estelle B. Freedman, "Uncontrollable Desires: The Response to the Sexual Psychopath, 1920-1960," Journal of American History 74 (June 1987): 83-106.

13. As proposed by Allan Berube in Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women During World War Two, (New York: New York Free Press, 1990), 29.

14. Loeser, 92-100.

15. Greenspan and Campbell.

16. Fry and Rostow, "Obervations," 25, 6-7, 39, 43.

17. Clements C. Fry and Edna G. Rostow, "Reflections on Some Aspects of Homosexuality as it Relates to Military Administration," 1950 Memorandum For: The Surgeon's General Department of the Army, Manuscript, (written 1948), 7.

18. Ibid., 16.

19. Berube, 12, 33.

20. John Thompson, Ideology and Modern Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), 7, 56.

21. G.N. Raines, "Memorandum to Admiral Swanson," U. S. Naval Center, Bethesda, Maryland (21 October 1947).

22. Bureau of Naval Personnel Proposed Lecture to Recruits on Homosexuality (1948), 2.

23. Department of the Navy Bupers Instruction 1620.3 (October 1953), 5, 6. Sent to all ships and stations in the Navy.

24. J. F. Bolger, Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel, Proposed Program of Indoctrination at Naval Training Centers on the Subject of Homosexuality (22 December 1952).

25. Ibid., 2, 4-6.

26. Ibid., 12-13.

27. Ibid.

28. Berube, 2, 9-13.

29. Ibid., 12.

30. Fry and Rostow, "Reflections," 6.

31. Berube, 147.

32. S. H. Crittendon, Jr., Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing with Homosexuals (15 March, 1957), 7, 10.

33. John D'Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940-1970 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 238.