lack of intellectual and moral integrity. There is no sense whatever of responsibility to facts or even to the opinions of others. The author has the conceit to assume that he has the right to speak for all homosexuals when in truth he is speaking only for and of himself. He demonstrates the utter selfcenteredness of the child.

The article runs rife with preposterous exaggerations, distortions bearing no relation to reality whatsoever, and absurd inconsistencies presented with the flippant impudence of the defiant child. Look, for example, at the impassioned cry against injustice by a man who can't even write with justice (much less compassion or humility) about his own kind, whom he arrogantly adjudicates to be not worth it. Yet he apparently feels this giddy little pamphlet to be a suitable vehicle for his own "worthy" opinions.

His condemnation of all homosexuals just because there are some-like himself-as yet too immature to think and act as adults is manifestly unfair. Yet this is a characteristic consistent with the general personality defect.

There is a substantial amount of evidence that emotional immaturity is part of the homosexual syndrome. Unfortunately in the case at hand there seems to be, in addition, a strong component of persecution mania and a very strong, ugly, and unbridled hostility. These elements are pathognomic of the paranoid personality.

Let us not be deluded by these fiery outbursts, whether in the pages of ONE or amongst our acquaintances, for we have an abiding need to think and act as emotionally mature and secure adults if we are to

achieve our goal. Our work can never be helped-only hampered-by frenetic temper tantrums.

It is the patient, unspectacular work of people like the editors of ONE and the members of the Mattachine Society that will eventually bring about an improved social and mental environment for all of us, but, I'm afraid, it will be in spite of the "children," rather than because of them.

Dear Sirs:

NORWALK, CALIF.

I'm applying for a subscription for which find checque enclosed. I think that your magazine is a good thing no matter what its deficiencies or excellent qualities may be, simply because it is an opportunity for a lot of individuals to get something off their chests. At least something is said, and in this case, better banalities than nothing at all. The whole problem, so far as I see it, is an impossible one, considering humanity and its history, but to bring matters to light

that an amount of discussion with its consequent enlightenment may ensue will at least help to alleviate narrow-mindedness and misapprehension. I have a small bone to pick with some of your writers and correspondents. There is always somewhere or other a stricture against the obvious queen, the "pansy," the flaneur. I think that is unfair. Among other rights of the individual I should like to defend the privilege of anyone to make a damned fool of himself, if

page 15