LETTERS

Gentlemen,

The ad in ONE soliciting clientele for an "astro-psychological analyst" detracts from the sensible tone of your magazine. If you so need revenue from advertising, why not personals such as in the SATURDAY REVIEW? If they didn't get out of hand so as to alarm the Postal authorities, these would be of great help to your readers.

New York.

For legal reasons, personal ads seem inadvisable.-Ed.

Gentlemen,

I feel called on to protest the unfortunate presentation of viewpoint in "The Importance of Being Different" in the March issue.

Certainly homosexuals break the law, and most feel the need to justify this, at least to themselves. But that this leads to rejection of all laws and all of society's moral concepts is patently absurd. Consistency may be a jewel or it may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but it is also a quality men demand of othersnever of themselves. They are perfectly capable of breaking one law and abiding by others, flouting one item of the moral code and firmly advocating the rest of it.

Is not "putting their own judgement above the rules which represent society's judgements" a process of growing up? As they mature, people examine society's judgements in light of their own growing perceptions-this produces adults, not rebels.

I suspect Mr. Pedersen is rather less different than he imagines. One's pleasures can lead one to where one ceases to have any rights at all. He should be better acquainted with the way people do, in fact, behave..

Chicago, Illinois.

As to the above, and "the way people do, in fact, behave," I feel my article stipulated the points our reader raises in objection.

If "putting their own judgements... above society's" is defined as maturing, I think few people mature much. I did not state that homosexuals were any more likely to be consistent than heterosexuals, nor do I feel we are the only rebels on earth. Every man, I think, has tendencies both toward rebellion and conformity. But the former tendency is often crushed.

Lyn Pedersen.

Gentlemen:

I cannot go along with you when you present the stupid, frivolous side of homosexuality, feeding material to those who will use it for selfish ends and hold us up to ridicule. I refer to the "Mary" type of conversation in stories and articles.

The flaming faggot who swishes up Lexington Avenue in New York City screaming and calling attention to his eccentricities, sets back homosexuality. He is an object of scorn and the general public places all deviates in the same class. He is a menace and decent homos have cause to resent him. I am not frustrated, I do have a sense of humor. I have a responsible position and would lose it immediately were I even suspect. I know, enjoy and employ the jargon, but never outside the circle. It has its place and that precludes the general public. To give such information in black and white, making it available to scoffers, is a form of suicide. Don't make things more difficult. Let us aim for respect. New York City

Editor, ONE:

The following is from a letter I addressed to SEXOLOGY magazine:

Reviewing a play on homosexuality, the writer says, "The law still marks homosexuality as a crime." This is absolutely wrong.

To the uninformed public, homosexuality means perversion or sodomy. No state in the Union has a law against homosexuality, but against Sodomy, the Crime Against Nature, Buggery, Bestiality.

Dr. Franz Alexander tells of a young man who said he had homosexual acts with a woman! This shows the ignorance of people.

Dr. Hirschfeld (Encyclopedia of Homosexuality) states that 40% of homosexuals practice fellatio 40% mutual masturbation, 8% pederasty and the other 12% Platonic relations. By common law definition of Sodomy (still on the books in some states,) only 8% are punishable, while in other states where fellatio is also considered Sodomy, 48% of the homosexuals are considered "criminals."

But Sodomy is by no means a monopoly of homosexuals. Even a husband and wife are punishable under the law for such acts. Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir,

Internecine struggle between the Mattachine and ONE would be the surest way to destroy both. Disagree with them if you will, but let them go their own way and drop the whole matter.

University Station, Va. This seems to be the prevailing opinion among our readers.-Ed.

one

page 28