But the most amazing fact lies in statistics: in spite of the stupidity with which society answers the problem of the homosexual, this variant's criminal and neurotic number is lower than that of the "normal" heterosexual in ratio to his percentage of the population. Can it be that the homosexual is somehow more stable than the majority?! It seems a foolish question yet the data can be interpreted that way.

The muscle magazines each month pour out whole cornucopias of misinformation and carefully fraudulent claims. In the former category we have a superb example in the statement of Bob Hoffman in an article on Sex (his capital) that the testes "produce the essential male characteristics such as broad shoulders, deep chest, hair on face and body, deep voice, fight, courage, ambition and other desirable masculine qualities." Beside the fact that the seat of "all masculine" qualities is definitely not the testes, we find the inclusion above of "fight, courage and ambition" which naturally no woman ever possessed because, obviously, she is not in possession of testes. If she is so strange as to be a Curie, a Bethune, a Sanger or a Nightingale, she's not really a proper, natural woman. But being a mother, scientist, Negro social worker or nurse do not require fight, courage and ambition. Maybe a stiff upper lip but nothing more that males are supposed to have a monopoly on. In addition, it must have come as a terrible blow to Bob Hoffman to hear that "Christine" Jorgensen still shaves. This is too much! Hair is one of the ways you can TELL a man! On the chest, it's an affidavit; on the jowl, it's insurance. However, when it's too thick on the body, one involuntarily thinks of Darwin and tries earnestly to dismiss the whole subject.

There is another aspect of the muscle magazines which goes right alongside their profound ignorance of facts and offers a piquancy which delights the even semi-detached reader. These publications are devoted PASSIONATELY to the apotheosis of maleness. At every opportunity they take a crack at the "weak, the perverted, the cowardly pansies, the unmanly." Yet almost the whole of their circulation depends upon those who dote upon the undraped male figure without aspiring to become similar to those pictured. The rear of the magazine is rich with ads of photographers who have "exciting" new photos of "handsome young athletes," in single and dual poses, in shadow and sunlight, in all stages of undress and in every posture approved by the Federal government. The greatest requirement, short of outright pornography, is that no pubic hair show.

Here is one of the profound contradictions of our time. These pictures are not made for enjoyment per se; they are for medical students, artists desiring expert models, and collectors of pictures who apparently care more for quantity than emulsion pattern. No one, for an instant, admits that these

page 7