movement requires and demands the inborn theory to justify itself.

Approximately one-eighth of Dr. Evans' review is a series of quotations from our work, purporting to indicate that we are inconsistent, switch sides on a crucial matter, and are in a "rather illogical position of insisting that homosexuality is like other psychological disturbances in that it is a learned way of reacting to traumatic childhood experiences. but then denying that treatment methods effective in ameliorating other such disturbances are effective against homosexuality.”

First, this is a serious misstatement of our position-for we never deny that the treatment methods "are effective against homosexuality," but only that their effectiveness is limited to a small number of cases, and that a change of orientation is not indicated for the majority of people involved. Some have indeed been changed by therapy, and any clinical psychologist who denies this is denouncing almost every authority as a liar. In such an instance, one must wonder why the specter of change is so threatening to some individuals that they consider "cure" the dirtiest word in the English language.

This is why the quotation with which Evans ends the section of his review dealing with our attitude toward therapy and change is not inconsistent; we never switch sides because we were never on the side imputed to us. Our position is clear, and is spelled out at great length; namely, that this is a disturbance, that it is in some instances subject to change, but that the nature of the adjustment made is such as to preclude or at least make extraordinarily difficultany change for very large numbers of people. For this reason, and because homosexuality is not antisocial in its nature and, if society were accepting, would not in itself be dif-

ficult to cope with, the homophile movement can accept therapy for some and adjustment within the framework of homosexuality for others.

If this position is "illogical," then we are indeed in a coterie of good company of illogical experts, including Freud, Bieber, Albert Ellis, and Clifford Allen, and the highly praised "first Cory report," among many others.

There is one basic question that permeates the entire review of Evans, and it is unfortunately never articulated by him. If he were to put his cards on the table, we could find that he is irked by the spotlight given in this book to hustlers and VD, effeminate men and muscle flexers, and other aspects of homosexuality that do not at all glorify this life.

When the chips are down, some people who have written in One, and who have been associated with the homophile movement, are under the impression that a prettified and glorified and romanticized version of homosexuality will aid in obtaining public acceptance. For these people, a writer should turn the spotlight on eternal loves, not on cruising and one-night stands.

There is only one thing wrong with their picture of homosexuals in America: it is not the truth. And basically, they do not ask for and would not support a plea for acceptance of homosexuals; they are calling for acceptance of a mythical nonexistent group.

Homosexuals can be accepted only if they are presented as real people. Making them appear to be more virtuous and noble or more degraded and disturbed than they actually are is to give the public good reason for rejecting them. Those who wish to emphasize only their virtues and omit their difficulties and shortcomings are only advertising their own