Helen Sanders of The Daughters of Bilitis writes: I am compelled to take considerable exception to the article in general and some areas in particular as presented by Mr. Hollister Barnes in your August issue.

Most of all, I resent the blanket statements about "the Lesbian." In my work with the Daughters of Bilitis, I am pretty well acquainted with a lot of girls who might be so classified. I believe that the two "reasons" stated lie far toward the bottom of the list of possible causes for sexual inversion in women. Most Lesbians adore children. Many of them are mothers and have given up a great deal to retain their children. Most of them do not hate men and in their relationships with other women seek a dominance or a passivism that makes the home life comparable to that of the heterosexual couple. Mr. Barnes is not aware, apparently, of the "butch-femme" controversy which has been rampant in our circles for some time. While I do not adhere to this practice or belief, I have found that a goodly number of both men and women do and this is part and parcel of their social existence. They do not become more "heightened in their womanliness" or their manhood by consorting sexually with their own sex. They perhaps become more expressive of themselves whatever it may be that needs expressing. The search for "selfhood" is an individual and varying quest that for all people, regardless of their sexual preference, has a lonely reward.

I do not consider it "amoral," "asexual" or "immoral" to keep one's sex-life from being the dominating factor in social behavior. If one must flaunt one's conquests, virility, etc., then there must be some fear or doubt about their existence. The police will arrest any man for indecent exposure, making improper advances to women, molesting children, etc. I see no reason to condone the homosexual in his screaming declamations about the sordid details of his romances or his overt tours into the areas of bad taste. To be discreet is not a dis-avowal of one's sexual preference.

Most important of the criticisms I wish to make is, to my mind, against Mr. Barnes' diatribe against heterosexual marriage and procreation. We must not seek understanding from others while condemning their way of life. If we do this, we will surely destroy what is good within ourselves and do away with the right to equality, understanding and acceptance. Speaking for the Daughters of Bilitis, I can say most positively that we do not expect to gain our own ground by putting our heels upon others. If there be militancy among us, it is aimed at social injustices and inequalities . . . not in disagreement about how people should live, believe or conduct themselves in society. We do not care to put an end to the human race. We have no bone to pick with heterosexuals and their way of life. We only ask that we be given an equal opportunity to pursue that which is more fitting to us.

Obviously Mr. Barnes does not know that homosexuals living together do not escape the responsibilities and problems of marriage. He surely has found no "moral freedom," for this possession would not be conducive to such free-flowing spleen. Life must, indeed, have its "dull stretches" if one finds no place in society and can only spit at the majority in impotent rage asking much; giving nothing.

I am glad I am a homosexual, but I'm not sure I'm glad Mr. Barnes

is one.

25