Dear ONE:

The June ONE held two great thrills for me. -The Successful Homosexual," and the advertisement for Ace's Towne House. Thrilled to know that ONE is being used as a commercial advertising medium. This alone denotes acceptance and will create in the minds of readers the idea that there are those who are unafraid.

But

why must some insist on on being swishy. It's not only revolting, but nauseating to those who try to live like MEN, working and living with people. Why should we wear a badge? Why do we insist on using and coining a lot of phraseological jargon which serves to advertise? Why when we attend a cocktail party must be dress in the God-awfullest ostentatious attire that only a Queer could assemble? Why do we get so much bang out of John's new "wife," or a broken relationship? Is it because we are so shallow and ephemeral that we are only looking for a new thrill?

Isn't it much more fun having someone with whom one can talk sensibly, enjoy a dinner out, a concert, or the theater? And whether it goes righ or all wrong isn't the logical, practical thing to do not to talk too much? But maybe it is asking too much for a homo to be logical and practical.

Mine is a responsible position, employing both male and female help and reference to or about sexual relationships is cause for discharge. Living in two worlds has many compensations, for everything has its place. Consequently we learn that tabasco sauce is not good on icecream. We also learn that ours will be a better world when we as human beings and homos clean up our own doorsteps.

Personally, I read ONE riding Chicago's "L." People see the title, but I've never been insulted, sneered at, at, propositioned, nor humiliated. I never came out" but was born with my characteristics and tendencies and NOBODY has had a harder time than have 1, but Brothers, we just can't afford to "swish." Mr. D. EVANSTON, ILL.

Dear Editor:

Reference is made to August Editorial. A good subject-Censorship-however, do believe you went a bit too far in calling the Catholic Church's advice on movies and plays (Legion of Decency) to her followers as "notorious" and implying this advice as an evil. Actually, this is not censorship at all, any more than a critic's review of a book is censorship. It is but a guide for those concerned to use in their evaluation of the item concerned.

Nevertheless, this criticism concerning reference to the Legion of Decency in no way should suggest total condemnation of the Editorial.

one

Viewed as a whole it carries a sound and pertinent opinion for us. Personally, I can. attest this Cross-the-Border (Canadian) Censorship. Having sent gay books twice to friends in Quebec, I was surprised to learn. neither had been received, nor were they returned. Here we have true censorship being enacted.

EDITOR'S REPLY:

Mr. E. JAMAICA, N. Y.

Whatever the publicly professed purpose of the Legion of Decency the fact remains that newsdealers are often "guided" not to handle items on its list. If they refuse to accept this guidance they find themselves harassed by a series of quite unofficial but bothersome intimidations. The dealer, interested primarily in making a profit rather than establishing his public rights, simply gives in. In several large American cities NO dealer has the courage to offer ONE for sale because of Legion of Decency pressures. This situation was first explained to ONE by Father X, a conscientious. and high-minded priest.

ONE's Editorial was in no sense directed at any church, but simply a factual report on conditions that experience has disclosed.

Dear Sir:

While I am not ordinarily a writer of "letters to the Editor," I would like to express my wholehearted agreement with the observations of Mr. R. of Garrison, N. Y. (August, 1958) who deplores the lack of humor and whimsey and cleverness in ONE.

That your motives and editorial policies are serious and dedicated is highly commendable; but in the process of taking yourselves so seriously, ONE frequently reads like a newsletter from a leper colony. Certainly social and legal changes are needed in our country, but consistently taking the "angry young man approach tends to blunt your effectiveness.

Most gay people are blessed with a welldeveloped and rare sense of humor, more so, in fact, than many so-called normal people. A little lighter editorial approach would give your magazine a whale of a goose, and probably be a lot more effective. After all, it's easier to read and remember one of Oscar Wilde's or Noel Coward's barbed witticisms than some legislator's political tirades.

If ONE were spiced with a little fun and wit, I believe your readers would enjoy it a lot more and they probably would pay attention to your more scholarly and discursory articles. I cast my vote with Mr. R. for a little laughter-it's one of the greatest tonics mankind has.

Mr. S.

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

30