interviewed in order to arrive at the conclusion "The most common factor in both homosexuality and prostitution or promiscuity is lack of love in childhood and adolescence," but I strongly advise her to re-check her data. Even if every homosexual with whom she came into contact had a loveless childhood it could not be established that this lack was the cause of his homosexuality. And if Miss V. is labouring under the delusion that prostitution and promiscuity are the same thing, I suggest she go back to her crystal ball for another look. I have known a goodly few prostitutes in many countries of the world and every one was a prostitute for the same reason: MONEY. The promiscuous woman, I suggest, is promiscuous for the sexual pleasure derived from this activity.

I also take immediate exception to her statement: "How can he ask for understanding or sympathy from society while denying it to others (child molesters, alcoholics, dope addicts, etc.) who suffer as he does or more?" end quote. As a homosexual I expect understanding from Society for the simple reason that to deny understanding of any minority is an indication of abdication of reason, prejudice, discrimination and plain bull-headed stupidity based on an unreasoning fear-and I don't like to think Society is completely hopeless. As for sympathy, I certainly have never asked for and would scorn sympathy from Society. I don't need it and have damn little sympathy for those homosexuals who snivel after it. On the other hand, I have sympathy with, say, the child molester; I realize that he is in need of psychiatric help; I try to understand him but I certainly do not condone his actions. There is no faintest similarity between two adult males mutually engaging in a sexual act in the privacy of their rooms and the child molester who is busily engaged raping a 10 year old girl in an abandoned house. Any exercises in dialectics attempting to equate the two totally different actions are utterly unworthy of a second thought.

The statement "the homosexual. . . has been so conditioned as to prefer the love of his own sex ... etc." is certainly not supported by any valid scientific facts; nor I suggest, are any of Miss V's flights of fancy. For example: "For the third (the homosexual) the remedy would be psychological reconditioning," end quote. Entirely apart from the fact that again no validscientific evidence is available to indicate the value of psychotherapy for all homosexuals; no facts are available that indicate the need of psychotherapy for all homosexuals (even if available and of proven value) by what right does Miss V. take it upon herself to recommend "reconditioning" (whatever that may be) for all homosexuals?

If Miss V. is serious in suggesting that homophile love is the "brotherly love" taught by Jesus, it becomes very clear that her ignorance of homosexuality is astronomic. If she seriously believes that some members of homosexual organizations are fighting "for complete license per se"-she comes mighty close to the gibbering stage.

To suggest to the homosexual that his condemnation of the child molester should enable him to understand his rejection by the heterosexual is grotesque and ridiculous. Condemnation of the child-molester is based upon respect of the rights of another human being; condemnation of the homosexual (as such) is based upon ignorance and fear. There is not the slightest similarity between the two.

Miss V's little venture into the field of Biology produces conclusions about as far-fetched, invalid and inapplicable to humanity as did similar investigations by Andre Gide.

7