**Re-reads the quotes he posted, and slowly and carefully removes the foot from his mouth**
I apologize for quoting a synopsis of Stern's book that was as dripping with venom as the reviewer accused Stern to be. It was the only synopsis I could find of the book, apparently because it was discredited early and has been out of print for so long.
Also, I see that Sterns was not researching and writing as a psychologist, but as an investigative reporter. In that respect, his subsequent "investigation" of Edgar Casey and other other paranormal subjects, and his conversion to their cause speaks not only about his character but about his skills in the area (investigative reporting) in which he was brought into this discussion as an "expert witness," so to speak.
Also, since the book was published in 1961, eight years before Stonewall, and researched for two years before that, the only "open" gays that Stern could have interviewed were men who had been convicted of sodomy or jailed in raids on gay nightclubs. Of course they were not happy.
From what little objective information as I have been able to learn about the book, it merely repeated standard stereotypes of the time as "shocking" new scientifically verified information. Very similar to the way certain German publications in the 1930's correlated physical characteristics (that happened to correspond to stereotypical physical descriptions of Jews and Gypsies) to criminal tendencies and/or insanity.
I apologize for quoting a synopsis of Stern's book that was as dripping with venom as the reviewer accused Stern to be. It was the only synopsis I could find of the book, apparently because it was discredited early and has been out of print for so long.
Also, I see that Sterns was not researching and writing as a psychologist, but as an investigative reporter. In that respect, his subsequent "investigation" of Edgar Casey and other other paranormal subjects, and his conversion to their cause speaks not only about his character but about his skills in the area (investigative reporting) in which he was brought into this discussion as an "expert witness," so to speak.
Also, since the book was published in 1961, eight years before Stonewall, and researched for two years before that, the only "open" gays that Stern could have interviewed were men who had been convicted of sodomy or jailed in raids on gay nightclubs. Of course they were not happy.
From what little objective information as I have been able to learn about the book, it merely repeated standard stereotypes of the time as "shocking" new scientifically verified information. Very similar to the way certain German publications in the 1930's correlated physical characteristics (that happened to correspond to stereotypical physical descriptions of Jews and Gypsies) to criminal tendencies and/or insanity.
Upvote
0
Hope you publish the study someday if you haven't already.
