most effectively in U.S. v. Males, supra, is not within the purview of the obscenity laws, since it does not stimulate sexual desire.

"Taking the poem as a whole, it can be said that the poem is bawdy and broad slapstick satire of a social condition now receiving a great deal of publicity. It has in spots what might be referred to as 'toilet humor', and in the se passages it becomes what some might consider to be vulgar. But these spots of vulgarity are not the dominant tone of the poem, and in addition, vulgarity of this sort has never under the cases been held to be 'obscene.'

"In this instance the language of the New York Court in People v. Creative Age Press, 79 N. Y. Supp. 2d 427 (1948) may be of value. In that case the court said of a literary work:'Their language is coarse and vulgar. They make occasional references to sexual contacts that are sophomoric and nasty. These references are, however, wholly incidental and are not descriptive. They are minor phrases and sentences serving in aid of characterization. Such incidental language does not of itself bring a literary work within the terms of the statute.

"Letters to the Editors, Page 26.

"There is nothing objectionable in these letters, but I urge that they be read and read carefully. It is evident that their outstanding quality is the sincere appreciation of those who read the magazine. They all stress one thing; that the magazine helps them to understand themselves, and is helping society to understand them. Since the purpose, sincerity and honesty of a publication are always relevant in a question of obscenity,' (Parmellee v. U.S., supra; U.S. v. Denett, supra), it is respectfully submitted that these letters to the Editors, unsolicited and printed without editing, represent in fact a powerful evidence that the magazine in fact does not arouse the salacity or sexual desires of readers, but, in fact, aids their UNDERSTANDING of themselves and by society. Although these letters are prompted by issues prior to the October issue, it is nevertheless significant that the comments made therein apply not to specific issues, but to the FACT of the magazine's existence and goals.

Advertising, Page 31.

"These are ads of sleeping garments and under clothing or sunbathing clothing. They are not a major departure from existing men's styles, and are shown on a model who is clothed and posing in a normal attitude which cannot be said to be offensive in any way. While the clothing advertised may be a little more feminine than most masculine garments, I have never seen it suggested that an article of clothing, per se, can be held to be obscene. For example, there is much advertising these days of women's garments, sometimes advertised in a most sensual context, and frankly advertising their erotic appeal. Such clothes are, of course, on public sale and can be purchased, for example, by male transvestites. The fact that perverse use may be made of such garments does not make their advertising obscene, however. Also, the fact that rhinestones appear on male garments is evidence of a decorative and exhibitionistic impulse that most males would shun; yet their existence on a garment does not make such a garment or the wearer thereof so overwhelmingly attractive to others in a sexual sense as to arouse their salacity' or sexual desires, for if such were the case, garments for WOMEN with such gaudy decoration would likewise have to be held obscene.

"It is evident this is an area where it must be said there is no accounting for taste' and 'everyone to his own taste,' so long, of course, as the garments advertised are without displays of nudity or obvious provo-

cation.

one