EDITORIAL

Almost two years ago there appeared on this page an editorial in which we pointed out the increasing willingness of society and the arts to consider homosexuality as a facet of man's nature, and we also tried to place these changes, as they had been reflected in novels, the drama, the movies and television, in proper perspective against a background of more liberalized attitudes toward, and greater preoccupation with, man's sexuality.

Perhaps authors and artists, producers and directors over estimated the public's willingness to accept these new attitudes and consequently moved too far or too fast. We say this because we sense a retreat, in recent months, from the outspokenness of a year or so ago. But the retreat is, we feel sure, only temporary, and is in no sense a retrogression. That this is true particularly in so far as the subject of homosexuality is concerned is demonstrated by the continuingly increasing willingness of writers to write and publishers to publish books in which homosexuality and homosexual characters play a frank and honest role in the same way and with the same relationship to other aspects of character and to other characters that they do in life. That this is true is demonstrated also by the fact that newspapers and magazines which not so long ago would not sully their pages (nor the minds of their readers) by even printing the word "homosexual" have printed lengthy and forthright articles on the subject.

A year ago many homosexuals and, I don't doubt, heterosexuals, too, were startled and either pleased or shocked to find what appeared to be a tolerant, if somewhat condescendingly sympathetic. article on homosexuality in Harper's Magazine. More recently and even more shockingly the staid and arch-conservative New York Times featured a similar article. We are glad that these two periodicals have dared to open their pages to such discussion; the willingness of "respectable" elements of our society to recognize the homosexual as an individual will inevitably be the first step toward bringing about the changes we in the homophile movement are striving for.

Regretfully we must point out that a bad article, wherever it may appear, may still do more harm than good, and it may be particularly damaging when it is written with a tone of reasonableness and tolerance. An irresponsible diatribe may be easily recognized by any reasonable person. On the other hand the quiet article, studied, tolerant and sympathetic in tone, apparently the result of personal investigation, may, and all too often does, repeat the same old untruths, the same stereotypes, the same faulty generalizations, the same emotionally charged words which we find in the diatribe, but its very tone compels the reader to believe what he reads to be true. Homosexuals, be critical, and someday you may write the truth. Marcel Martin Associate Editor

one

4