if the gay world lacks adequate knowledge of so many of its own members, is it any wonder that the misguided psychiatrists solemnly pronounce "There are no happy homosexuals the very impermanence of their relationships is proof of their inherent 'wrongness'."

I have also heard the criticism that if a relationship can only exist in comparative isolation it cannot have any real strength or value. On the contrary, I feel that if two boys can live and love thusly for a life-time it is proof of the independence, depth and value of the association.

Of great interest is the third group of "couples." Admittedly of small numerical strength, their existence is a phenomena rarely suspected and never studied.

On a number of occasions in the more remote country sections of Ontario, we have seen two boys-perhaps in the local beverage room (bar in the U.S.A.) who are, to the experienced observer, obviously "together." In no case do they show the slightest signs of conventional "gayness" and are, to the casual eye, indistinguishable from the throng of roughly dressed, weatherbeaten farmers and drovers who crowd the bar-room. Any attempt to explain to a normal man (or a psychiatrist) how these two differ from the others would meet with a scornful laugh and an accusation of "swishful thinking." But another homosexual would readily see the small "differences": the somewhat shy glances, the small gestures of affection, their obvious sincere pleasure in each other and their lack of interest in the others. When they come in they will call greetings to their friends, but unlike the majority who will join a group at one of the tables, these two will invariably sit by themselves. More often than not they will take chairs side by side rather than across from each other. Their conversation will be quiet-not something to be shared with the others not, of course, that it would be "romantic"; the way the wheat came through the winter, how the young pigs are doing or the condition of the back roads as the frost leaves the ground these are the topics that would interest boys of this kind. As the evening advances, the beer reduces the inhibitions and bodily contact (apparently accidental) becomes more frequent-hands briefly touch, heads draw closer together and each becomes acutely aware of the other's presence in a way that no two normal youths could comprehend. For these are the "comrades" so beloved by Walt Whitman and theirs the "manly love" of which he sang so beautifully in the Calamus section of Leaves of Grass. This is the purest form of homosexuality-unadulterated by the refinements of effeminacy or civilization. To these boys, their attraction for each other is taken entirely for granted-uncomplicated by jealousy, gossip and all the other obstacles that beset the "gay" couple discussed in the first group. Their friendship is noted (without complete understanding) and accepted by the community as something both natural and desirable. It goes without saying that these boys have no idea of even the meaning of the word "homosexual." They are probably of the opinion that they are the only two in the world-if, indeed, they ever consider the matter, which I doubt very much.

And now, how does one go about establishing one of these permanent relationships? Ah! how, indeed? Many have tried and succeeded; many more have tried and failed. Success or failure are both possible under widely divergent conditions. I do believe (based upon no small personal experience) that the single most important requirement for success is this: both must want to be together more than anything else in life and be determined to remain together in spite of any opposition from any source. Provided this desire and determination is mutualhow, then, can they fail?

9