LETTERS

Gentlemen:

Since first coming in contact with your magazine I have looked forward to receiving each issue. The articles contained therein achieve a steady balance of appeal to the different types amongst our group. In a field such as you cover there is bound to be much disagreement as to the merits of each issue's content.

I know for myself I don't find the real "Swishy" stories of much interest but looking at it from the view point of those who do like them I think that you do manage to get out an informative, interesting and thought provoking booklet.

I hope and trust that your efforts on our behalf will continue to be strong and bear fruit for the more complete understanding of our problem by our fellow citizens.

Gentlemen:

MR. I. NEW YORK, N. Y.

Two letters appearing recently in your "Letter" section have prodded me into getting a few things off my chest. So here goes:

First, may I address San Francisco's letter appearing in your April issue? I assume the writer here refers to the article "In Defense of Swish" and I heartily agree that this was a most unfortunate and ill-advised item. Aside from the falsity of its premise, the results of such an article are unfortunately not amusing or humorous but, as the San Francisco letter so aptly states "tragic and dangerous." Not only does this type of driveling philosophy disgust and estrange and thereby cut off the interest and support of the better type of invert who believes inversion can and should be invested with dignity, masculinity and high ideals of conduct and character, but it serves to further prejudice an already dangerously warped concept and attitude of a neurotically biased heterosexual majority toward the homosexual minority, and this is the most "tragic and dangerous" effect of all.

And now may I address New York City's letter which appeared in the March issue?

The views expressed here are those of the writers. ONE's readers cover a wide range of geographical, economic, age, and educational status. This department aims to express this diversity.

To this I would say "Amen! Amen!" It so thoroughly incorporates all of my own ideas, feelings and convictions on the subject of the gay bar element and the thrill-seeking crowd whose entire orientation is on the physical.

I, too, care little for gay bars or for the type one inevitably meets there. I, too, would infinitely prefer the company of the thinking individual whose mind is not constantly racing along the groove of an evening's pleasure. But I, too, cannot be irrevocably condemnatory of the gay bar element or their attitudes because, in asking myself "why is it so?" I inevitably am convinced that these conditions exist to the extent they do largely because of the untenable and chaotic position of the invert in a society where the antagonism and persecution of a neurotically biased heterosexual majority make his life almost unbearably desperate at times. I am convinced that many of these gay-bar habitvees were not always thus. Perhaps the majority began with high ideals and standards. They wanted and looked for something better but could not find it through legitimately accessible ways and means. Scratch beneath the surface of many and you will find a succession of disillusionments, heartache and suffering brought about primarily by the stupidity and intolerance of an unsympathetic society in which they have found themselves lost and confused. The inevitable result is the acceptance of what they consider irrevocable, an ever-growing cynicism and the "oh what the hell, devil may care" attitude of taking pleasure as it comes and "what more can you expect in a world such as we have to live in" philosophy. This does not mean that I condone or approve this way of life or attitude, but let us at least be partially fair in placing the major blame where it belongs, namely on a society which sins against the invert more than the invert sins against it and which, in its ignorance and prejudice, breeds the very conditions it so stuffily and hyprocritically persecutes.

MR. D.

LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

one