READERS on Writers

The article "Homosexuality as Compared with Child Molestation and Other Compulsions," by Cristina Midence Valentine (April, 1960) provoked such a rash of replies from readers that once again a "Readers on Writers," feature becomes a necessity. Miss Valentine's ability to "draw blood" by her writing is amply attested by the following vigorous excerpts from the many letters the Editors received. The final judgment is left for each individual to make, in accordance with ONE's long-standing custom of opening its columns to Variant Views without expressing either editorial agreement or disagreement.

Miss F. Conrad of California writes: Cristina Midence Valentine, in her article in the April issue of ONE, accuses her critics of setting logic aside. Yet her article, despite the intensive background research to which she refers, in the fields of anthropology, biology, metaphysics, psychology, sociology, and allied fields, is itself a model neither of logic nor of clear presentation.

1. She says "there is no justification for the belief that the homosexual, as a member of a minority group, enjoys any privilege that must be denied other minority groups and for which he must fight." Why, exactly, must all 'minority groups' be placed on the same footing? Does this include murderers? The fact is that if moral or ethical codes can exist, then they can and must discriminate. I would not wish to propose a moral code that would justify any and all homosexual behavior, while condemning child seduction. But it would not seem unreasonable and not at all foreign to the traditions. of western culture-to propose a code placing homosexual behavior between consenting adults on a higher plane than child molestation on the grounds that (1) the use of force or violence is repugnant, and does not conform with the dignity of the individual, that (2) there is at least a possibility that children may be harmed by sudden premature exposure to unusual kinds of experience, particularly in the area of sex, and that (3) the latter kind of behavior is not likely to be accompanied by profound or mutual love, whereas this is possible in the former case. While this ethical position need not be approved by everyone (Vladimir Nabokov might take exception to the third point), it is nevertheless an entirely legitimate position.

2. One's ethical view of homosexuals vs. child molesters has nothing whatever to do with one's comprehension that the second group may suffer as keenly as the first, or that both "need love and understanding." Of course they may and do. So do murderers.

3. Miss Valentine's discussion of the "normal" vs. the "abnormal" raises more questions than it answers. The "normal" person, we are told, retains

5