You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
DR. FRIEDMAN (1976) HAS PRESENTED A heterosexual patient whose parents are presumed to be similar to those we described as typical in the background of the male homosexuals in our research sample (Bieber, et al., 1962). Based upon the patient's heterosexual adaptation, Dr. Friedman (1) questions the validity of our assigning etiological weight to the "classical" parent—child configuration we delineated; (2) questions, with Marmor, "the legitimacy of discussing sexual object determination in terms of psychodynamic formulations"; and (3) concludes that, "the manner in which psychodynamic coping mechanisms influence the developing personality is unknown."
In review: My colleagues and I reported that the majority of homosexuals studied had what we termed "a close-binding-intimate mother" (CBI) and "a detached and/or hostile father." However, not all the mothers in our study were described as CBI. Some were detached and disinterested; others, detached and hostile. Nor were all the fathers "detached." We made it quite clear that the classical configuration was not the only one associated with homosexuality. Still, of our homosexual sample, 50 had the combination of a CBI mother and h/d father compared with 20 in our heterosexual group—statistically significant at the .001 level. Further, we described 20 patients who had CBI mothers and d/h fathers who were not homosexual. In fact, nine heterosexuals had protocols indistinguishable from those of the homosexuals. Five of these heterosexual patients are described in detail on pages 263–272. Though each like Dr. Friedman's patient, had a heterosexual