the criminal at the time of the gesture; otherwise unweaned babies would be similarly culpable for establishing incestuous relations with their mothers. The Law simply indicates. that normality is a state existing from birth to death without interruption, and that it is absent in all intercourse except that in which the male is dominant and has impregnation firmly in mind. Preposterous as this may sound, the formula is wholly valid in an atmosphere where it is necessary to determine the acceptability of what goes on in dark rooms behind locked doors.

Strangely, the two most notable atmospheres in which this categorization is most imperative are courts of law and gay bars. In both, echoes the frenzied question: Will he or won't he? Legally, the question makes good sense in testing for criminality. Similarly, it protects the socializing homosexual from getting involved with merely another "faggot" instead of a "man." Both terms are used by the deviate more than any other section of society because homosexuals appear to detest one another in what amounts to happy dedication. Further, they seem to be wholly unmoved by sexual difficulties other than their own. The world about them is comprised of gorgeous brutes, dirty old men and females who really aren't people at all. At the center of all this is Utterly Special Me.

The fact is evidenced in the tortured histories of both the Mattachine Forensic League and the magazine ONE. Both still exist after all this time, not because of their social aims but in spite of them. Both find their most constant support among those who want to share a sexual leaning intellectually like bird-watchers who also band together rather inexpicably. The sexually active have little time for magazines and meetings. Then it can be suggested that homosexuality is little more than a cult or a religion. As

one

such, it is history's most effete form of phallic worship having neither rite, credo nor direction.

There is no reason other than religion that such a wide variety of people should feel themselves to be members of a single group. Intellectually, they range from cretin to genius. Physically, the gamut goes from frail to monstrously muscular, and emotionally from the psychotic to the stable. In none of these categories are they unusual. Then the one thing they have in common is their interest in a sex act and in specific sex organs. Nothing else identifies them.

Homosexual fiction, poetry and humor can only be pornographic in that the crux of all these is libidinous. Few have ever thought to designate some writer as "that great heterosexual author and exponent of normality." On the contrary, he is quite often great in spite of the subject matter he chooses. Similarly, a homosexual scientific view is as hilarious as a Methodist chemist, a Catholic gardner or a Druid Republican. The juxtaposition can only imply bias, the arch-opposite of Science. Any study of homosexuality must concern itself primarily with the question "Why?" which indicates that deviates must be explained, excused or eradicated. Although it is a fascinating enigma, there has been little research on why men like women. No one appears to be interested.

There are definitely heterosexual magazines devoted solely to the male interest in the fact of femininity. A glance at them will reveal their publishers, writers and readers as persons of alarmingly limited mentalities. Their monomania is puerile and monotonous. On the other hand, those men's magazines which appeal to the intelligent are outstanding for their articles and fiction on subjects far removed from erotica. None could be classified as exclusively heterosexual. Intelligence is sexless. It is quite easy

18