thesis of Tearoom Trade is the incongruence between the private self and the social self for many of the men engaging in this form of homosexual activity. Specifically, they put on a "breastplate of righteousness" (social and political conservatism) in an effort to conceal their sexual behavior and prevent being exposed as deviants. Humphreys tapped into a theme of incongruence between one's words and deeds that has become a primary methodological and theoretical concern in sociology throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Humphreys' study has been criticized by sociologists and other social and behavioral scientists on ethical grounds in that he observed sexual acts by masquerading as a voyeur, "did not get his subjects’ consent, tracked down names and addresses through license plate numbers, and interviewed the men in their homes in disguise and under false pretenses." According to Jack Nusan Porter, a sociologist who knew Humphreys and studied under Howard S. Becker at Northwestern University from 1967 to 1971, "Humphreys was enormously influential on graduate students and younger scholars in the field of deviance, ethnography, and what we called 'participant observation'. True, today one could not do such research because there was no 'informed consent' but then again, in many cases, when doing research on deviant behavior, one will never get 'informed consent' so we miss out on a lot of important findings. He was a true pioneer and a hero to all of us in these fields." Humphreys' research materials, including detailed diagrams and maps of tearoom activity he observed, are housed in the collections at ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives. By 2004, Tearoom Trade had sold more than 300,000 copies. Steven P. Schacht notes that this fact "makes it one of the best selling books ever written by a sociologist." The book was also published by Gerald Duckworth & Co. in British English, and in German by Ferinand Emke Vertag. Both of these versions were published in 1974. Humphreys' influence Humphreys influenced generations of sociologists and other social and behavioral scientists in complex ways. He is often studied in research methods classes for the ethical questions that his works raised. However, Earl Babbie, who writes about sociological research methods, notes that the controversy about "sociological snoopers" and research ethics was likely the result of societal homophobia and disgust with the research topic, and not due to real problems with research methods. Schacht credits Humphreys with pioneering