but their words do not fit his situation and instead of finding the words he needs he unconsciously trys to adapt himself to the words he knows.

Heterosexual man, having no real concept of anything else, and because it is the concept to which he is exposed from infancy, accepts the malefemale principle as an absolute which admits of no other. That this principle is fallacious is really self-evident for the fact is that man can and does enjoy sex in a variety of ways outside this principle. The very existence of homosexuality attests to the truth of this and yet our thought processes, our attitudes, are so conditioned by the acceptance of this principle that when we think of sex we can think only in terms of "he and she," "him and her," "masculine and feminine," "aggressive and passive." Then, since we have no other terms, we find ourselves accepting the idea that if one man is attracted emotionally or physically to another man, he must be basically female, since there can exist no attraction except between opposities. But what happens when two men are attracted to each other, when the attraction or love, if you will, is mutual and reciprocated? Obviously both men must be intrinsically female, but aren't we then back where we started, in a situation, which, except for the fact that it exists, is quite impossible? As a result of conditioning, however, we find it easier to ignore the ultimate truth as it is exposed by the second situation and to accept the falsity of the first. We then proceed to attach to these two individuals to both, oddly enough, not just one-epithets which are generally feminine and which we hope will satisfactorily conceal the fact that males can be and are attracted to each other: belle, queen, nellie, fairy, girl, auntie, mother, and so on. These are all lovely words in their basic

one

meanings, but, as almost invariably happens when words are used in a sense which is incompatible with their basic meaning, they become funny, pejorative, or even down-right vulgar.

It is not surprising that such words might be used by heterosexuals in a pejorative way, but what I deplore is the constant use of these words by homosexuals themselves. I am not being a prude and I am not being "high-busted." I can laugh at these words and I don't stalk off the stage in high dudgeon if someone calls me a "belle;" I am perfectly well aware that we use these words among ourselves and in referring to each other often in fun, largely in a spirit of bravado, and primarily because we believe that to use them demonstrates that we are able and willing to accept the fact that we are what we are and that we have learned to live with ourselves.

There are two things which distress me however. The first is that I believe that the acceptance of these words and their constant, unalleviated use are effeminizing influences. We cannot constantly refer to ourselves as "belles" without coming to think of ourselves as "belles" and subsequently to act like "belles." We've all had the experience of seeing one of our friends or ourselves, while in his cups, or in a or in a moment of abandon, or in a simple effort to his audience "camp up a storm." I readily admit that I've been heartily amused by such scenes and I suppose I've created a few myself. I can enjoy and appreciate a good "high camp" when it's done consciously and for a desired effect, but I hate to see it carry over into habitual dail behaviour. It's really quite depressing when you stop to realize that there is no real connection between such behavior and the honest truth of simply responding

amuse

6