would be a line of understanding between us. Then, I think even that would be dangerous; it might become an involvement.

I have found it a great relief to end the deception, at least with my family, who have now begun to accept my problem with some understanding. Now I will be able openly to find a solution, if one exists. Twenty years is a long time to carry a secret of this sort, but it is far less burdensome now than it was even a week ago. Thanks for your help. Mr. C.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

TIME IS, TIME WAS . . . Dear ONE:-

Time is past, apparently, when an essay was something more than a rehash of already-hackneyed comments, copied directly or indirectly from others. Besides being just that, TIME's "Homosexual In America." (1-21-66) tried so hard to avoid a commitment (without seeming to), and yet to commit itself (also without seeming to), that you could take it as a classic example of the sophistry of which it accuses the homosexual. Trickiest piece of sophistry TIME had, of course, to borrow from someone else-its own writers not yet being trained to such refined gobbledegook. This priceless bit was, in my opinion, the one attributed to N.Y. State Supreme Court Justice Hofstadter. In it, he contrasted the "wrongful" with the "lawful" act, as if "law" was synonymous with right, and "illegality" with wrong. From such a view, the qualifications of this Justice for the bench seem to be confined to diploma from some police academy. The correct distinctions, as any Justice should know, are between right and wrong, and between lawful and illegal. Solomon understood this perfectly three thousand years ago (1 Kings, 3.16-28). All rights are not necessarily prescribed by law, nor does law proscribe all wrongs. The fallacious thinking that regards the "wrongful" as being opposed to the "lawful" is precisely the erroneous thinking that underlies antihomosexualism, and TIME has fallen for Justice. Hofstadter's bait hook, line, & sinker.

Mr. G.

Los Angeles, Calif. THE HOMOPHILE IN FLORIDA

Dear Mr. Conger:

Things here at long last are looking up. I never thought I'd live to see the day that a section of the Mattachine would be established in the Sunshine State. The people behind it seem both intelligent and aggressive. We've been plagued in this State for years by the "do-nothing" attitude of the "sick sisters" and "nervous nellies." Perhaps, now, some progress will be made. You good folks have certainly spearheaded much of the changes that have come about. Homosexuals

30

everywhere owe you a debt that can never adequately be paid.

In TIME Magazine of Jan. 21, 1966 there is an essay on "The Homosexual In America." I found it full of the usual fatuous generalizations. Most of what it said could be challenged and definitely should be. Your "old friend," Dr. Edmund Bergler, was quoted and his statements accepted as gospel. I need say nothing more about Bergler.

May 1966 be a year that sees some real breakthroughs. I know you folks will be working hard toward those aims.

If you print my letter, by all means please use my name instead of the usual initials. It's a great boost for the ego.

Thurman A. Sontag

North Port Charlotte, Florida

BOUQUETS & BRICKBATS

TO THE EDITOR:-

In a recent letter sent to your friends you mentioned the fact that ONE, ever since 1952, stood for high standards of every sort.

I wonder if this is especially true in regard to such stories as "Interview With a Hustler," published in your November, 1965 issue. A filthier story than that one I have not read in a long, long time. And I wondered where the connection between your high standards and such filth is.

Dear Chuck Thompson:

Mr. B.

Stuttgart, Germany

Season's Greetings! I will always remember the most interesting European Tour underyour excellent leadership which I took in 1965.

I just visited some of your Eastern cities, and so missed calling upon you. There is one group now operating in Philadelphia which is considered to be much more interesting than the one in Amsterdam. People here in Taiwan are now also gathering in a particular club, rather than in the Park.

Dear ONE:-

Dr. M.

Taipei, Taiwan

"Tolerance", by Paul Menken, in your November 1965 issue must stand as one of the most inappropriately named, irritatingly intolerant pieces of garbage to appear in a modern liberal publication.

As for your editorial on the need for leadership in the "homophile" movementthat dandy, silly euphemism-potential lead-

will hesitate before committing themselves to a course which may severely damage or destroy their leadership possibilities on behalf of greater causes. The fact is that we can survive, albeit not as happily as we might, without the approval of an intolerant heterosexual-or pseudo-heterosexual-society. As for camp, even if homosexuals constitute a group unacceptable to society, most of us