AbstractThe concept of the homosexual“role”has been the subject of heated debate in recent years. Some observers argue that the concept has no validity, since no one is socialized into this putative“role,”and no one learns to become a homosexual as a consequence of it. The author contends that this is a misunderstanding both of the nature of homosexuality and of the sociological concept of role. The fallacy lies in viewing homosexuality inessentialisticterms—that is, in terms of a single definitive indwelling and fixed criterion. In contrast, the author argues that homosexuality can most fruitfully be seen as a“mix”of characteristics, a series of dimensions—each one of which may be relevant for different purposes. Viewed in this light,“role”becomes a powerful analytic tool in understanding homosexuality.