What about the "masculine" male who is homosexually attracted to his more "feminine" counterpart? Here, also, the sexual component is primary, but of the other two, the power component takes precedence over the dependency component. This person, adaptation ally, is better integrated than his partner. He is driven to gratify his sexual need in a homosexual fashion because he is too frightened to perform heterosexually, but, notwithstanding, he rejects any representation of himself as feminine. His object choice is a man, but one as much like a woman as possible. If, in addition, the power component is strong, he attempts to redeem his masculine failure through a compensatory domination of his weaker partner. He seeks to have men submit to his penis orally and anally, but generally refuses to accept the reverse role. He denies his own dependency at the expense of the weaker man. In this way he not only satisfies himself sexually, but also enhances his deflated masculinity by making a woman out of his partner. The homosexual act itself is a confession of masculine failure, yet in this instance the patient paradoxically uses it to affirm his masculinity. Cases of this kind could well be labeled "paradoxical homosexuality."

The "feminine" male and the "masculine" male represent two extremes of the overt homosexual conflict. There can be all degrees of variation in between, and it is possible for relationships to be on a greater level of equality. This is more apt to occur when the pseudohomosexual components are less weighted. The union is then joined mainly for purposes of sexual gratification and each partner does for the other what he would have the other do for him. The activity of choice in such relationships is more often mutual masturbation. Fellatio and anal mount occur less frequently, and then primarily as alternative forms of sexual stimulation rather than as reparative devices. In these types of homosexuals, the extent of "feminine" dramatization or of "masculine" protest in their social behavior will be! determined, as it is in the more extreme types, by the relative strengths of the pseudohomosexual components.

Here, the term "latent" was applied to the purely sexual component of the conflict. Strictly speaking, this is the only correct application of the term. Anxiety integrated on this basis is a true homosexual anxiety, and it, alone, warrants the label of latent homosexuality. Clinically, however, such anxieties are infrequent. The great majority of so called homosexual anxieties are motivated by strivings for dependency and power. These anxieties, as has been shown, stem from pseudohomosexual fantasies that are misinterpreted by the patient as being evidences of frank homosexuality. In reality, the sexual component, if present at all, is very much in abeyance. More often it appears to be entirely absent. In these cases, where the homosexual motivation is nonexistent, or so negligible as to have no significant impact, it would be better to drop the term "latent homosexuality" altogether and refer instead to the pseudohomosexual conflict."

The correct breakdown of the homosexual conflict into its motivational components is of primary importance in psychotherapy. It is here, particularly, that the classical constitutional approach can do great damage. The interpretation of overt homosexuality as an expression of inherent bisexuality is discouraging enough, but to explain dependency and power strivings to a heterosexual patient on the same basis can be catastrophic. Adding fuel is no way to put out a fire. .It is hoped that the adaptational analysis of the homosexual conflict as proposed in this chapter will find practical application in the conduct of therapy.