Phooey!

I think he presumes much in calling homosexuality a neurosis. There is a homosexual neurosis to be sure, just as there could be a compulsive neurosis to close doors but door closing itself is not a neurosis. Furthermore, I doubt if many "exclusive" homosexuals feel it is necessary to "adjust" to their homosexuality and thereby lose their "guilt" about it. In fact, the homosexual has to "adjust" to his homosexuality no more than he has to "adjust" to the color of his eyes.

I conclude from Dr. Ellis that to be a well integrated, adjusted and normal individual, one's personal life must be cluttered with all psycho-sexual experience from A to Z and in equal portions. There is nothing quite like compounding a neurosis to send an individual "running to his analyst" to be adjusted out of his adjustment.

It seems to this writer that therapists who advocate individual adjustment as the panacea for all psychic ills in one breath and speak of "this neuroticizing society" in the next are a little less than certain as to what exactly is at fault.

Since the fact of being alive includes a continuing inter-action between the individual and his environment, and since neither is static, it seems a shame that we view man's variety so negatively. Should all the mountains become hills and all rivers ponds because it is arbitrarily decided that these are the better or even the desired forms of environment?

The problem (if one exists) which the homosexual has is no different from the need every human has for identity. But, to achieve a personal and social identity does not require life-long subservience to society-conceived, unproven theories of what constitutes a normal, adjusted human being; all this being based on the probability that there is or should be such a thing.

It is a waste of effort to pursue the study of human vagaries and behaviors without considering the social, intellectual and probable sexual evolution of the whole human species. All else is indeed "wishful thinking."

Dear Editor:

Miss D.

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

While I like Albert Ellis' article-"Are Homosexuals Necessarily Neurotic?" very much, I cannot agree with him on some points.

I agree with him that every human being is essential bisexual-capable of having all sorts of relationships with both sexes. Yet, if there are many "exclusive" homosex-

uals as well as very many "exclusive" heterosexuals, they will always be very neurotic and rather impossible to get along with because of their dogmatic perspectives and of their refusal to accept the others' rights to be very different. Most of them will always continue to be so much unaware of their immediate need to find their real selves because of many factors operating within and without-that I can not see how a skilled psychotherapist could ever be able to help such persons-finding that many people (heterosexual) as well as (homosexual) come out of their psychotherapy still very much unaware of many essential factors in life and in society. Ellis says, "Those exclusive homosexuals, in other words, who most loudly proclaim that they are not necessarily neurotic are, by their very head-in-the-sand attitudes, conclusively proving how seriously neurotic they actually are." He is one hundred per cent right. This goes as well for those exclusive heterosexuals who claim that they have no problems. I smile when a friend declares that he has no problems at all. Problems are very essential in our lives; they challenge us to do something about our lives and about the world. Life would not be worth living if we had no problems. I have much more respect for persons who acknowledge their problems openly and naturally....

In a sense I can not agree with Ellis that existence within a gay world could be a fetishistic sickness because there will always be very many homosexuals who can never be aware outside of their selves for many excellent reasons for which they could not help. Thus, let them be happy in their own world-otherwise, they would break down much sooner.

However, we have to accept the possibility that psychotherapists can not help such persons who are overwhelmed by their personal problems on the grounds that it is our society that is largely responsible for such persons' inability to cope with their own problems. We know far too well that society is largely responsible for our difficulties; thus, it is up to us who are being much more aware of many factors operating within and without to assert ourselves as individualists-as a means of making contributions to the betterment of society-

on our own.

I have to commend Albert Ellis for presenting his views very clearly and do hope that homosexuals in general would understand what he is driving at although I fear that the exclusive homosexuals and heterosexuals are going to be very angry with Ellis as well as with me but it is the truth. Mr. S.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

19