Letters

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO THE EDITORS FORWARD LETTERS FROM READERS TO OTHER PERSONS NOR DO THEY ANSWER CORRESPONDENCE MAKING SUCH REQUESTS.

Dear ONE:

In "Letters" (September, 1958) I note that the Corporation is not yet large enough to manage branch offices." This I'm sure is true but a brother organization, Mattachine Society, does have branches in New York City, Washington, etc., yet no mention is made of this fact. It is almost as though you were working towards different ends. I feel that you missed a wonderful way to further both causes by missing an opportunity of mentioning Mattachine.

I thought that the article by Carol Robin, "Why Do They Persecute Us So?" was excellent. Certainly one of the most constructive articles I have ever read. Glad to see that you have rid yourselves of the rather odious advertising that snuck into several issues a few months back. Keep up the good work and let's hope that we all may grow together. Mr. D.

EDITOR'S REPLY:

WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA

Publications of the Daughters of Bilitis, many European homophile organizations, and the Mattachine Society are regularly advertised in ONE Magazine as a service to readers. This does not mean, however, the endorsement by the Corporation of the work of these various groups. It simply records the fact that these are a part of "the homophile movement."

If we were not convinced that ONE's approach was distinctive and the one best designed to be helpful to inquirers, what reason would the Corporation have for existing? Why not merge all the groups into a single melting pot? Would Reader D. seriously expect Republicans to refer inquirers to Democratic headquarters, or Protestants to recommend the Roman Catholic approach to spiritual questions?

Gentlemen:

The book Lolita would seem to indicate

that sexual desire for children seems to be about as common as homosexual desire. I believe that most of the readers of this Magazine are of the opinion that homosexuality should be accepted but that molestation of children, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is to be condemned. Although I am innocent of the drive in question, if logic is to be carried to its conclusion, answers from intelligent, mature thinkers may provide new clues of great value to all.

Homosexuals usually, if not always, agree that their deviation forced them to use sheer logic to resolve their problems and to accept themselves in order to be useful citizens; and this logic led them to the conclusion that the persecution of homosexuality is unjustified and the result of superstitious ignorance, and that free expression of homosexual drives is preferable to disastrous frustration.

Now, will someone kindly tell me why homosexuality should be accepted but child molestation condemned, despite the fact that the urge in each case is imperative and its denial wreaks physical, mental and moral havoc and also that the love an older person feels for a child, even though sexual in nature, can be as beautiful as that which two homosexuals feel for each other?

Need I make clear that I am not advocating child molestation, but simply raising a point that must be settled if the logic on which the entire case for homosexuality is based is to stand, and if not, then there is a fallacy in homosexual thinking that must be faced and resolved.

Dear ONE:

Miss V.

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

I don't feel comfortable about our exposing or making any sort of attack on the investigating officers (the writer was recently dismissed from his position). Granted that these people are doing a very cruel work and that their methods are so low and nasty that they can only continue under cover, still I doubt that the over-all situation can be improved or that they can individually be encouraged to change by our putting pressure on them or by our threatening them. Certainly if we were to retaliate in this way we would be following the standard and quite acceptable code. But I wonder if this code has ever worked very well.

In my interview with the Investigators | acted on the assumption that the best experience for them would be to encounter a gentleman who can be frank about his homosexuality and who is neither angered nor frightened by their attack. I assumed that they are very fearful people, which means that they can only be made worse by being frightened or by being allowed the impression that they can frighten others.