The News-Call-Bulletin then thought it proper to add: "The officers made clear Hall certainly was not in that unfortunate category."

It is not important what "unfortunate" category Mr. Hall may or may not have been in. Psychologists have yet to determine what constitutes a "sex deviate," although many law enforcement and newspaper people are able to use the term glibly. Apparently they mean "homosexual."

But could it possibly be that these four young men were "sex deviates" in a sense of the words much more real than could ever be applied to a mere homosexual? We think so. "Deviate," according to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, means "To turn aside from a course; to stray, as from a standard, a topic." These boys have certainly turned aside from a course and strayed from a standard. As to the sexual nature of their activities, it is well known that persons whose sexual channels are blocked by feelings of fear, guilt, inadequacy or other reasons will frequently resort to acts of violence not as an accompaniment to, necessarily, but as a complete substitute for sexual acts themselves. Thus, superficially at least, many sex crimes don't appear to be such. It is significant, indeed, that such acts of violence are frequently rationalized as "to regard the beating up of whomever they consider sex deviates as a civic duty." What, then, is a "sex deviate?” But let's not get too involved in semantics. The fact is that the condition of such people is more deplorable than that of their victims, even though its cause may have resulted from the best of intentions on the part of their educators, whoever they are.

The parents concurred generally that they didn't know how their children were spending their time, but that they were running around with a "bad bunch." In other words, "They didn't get it from us."

There is nothing unusual about anything these parents had to say. Such remarks, almost casual, are usually forthcoming from the parents of teenage criminals. What kind of sex education had these parents ever given their children? What kind of sex education had these parents ever had themselves? One wonders.

A very large proportion of seemingly pointless murders and assaults have been shown to have been committed by persons who have been over-exposed to what is impertinantly called "moral" training. The gist of this very popular type of twentieth century American teaching seems to be: "Keep your pants on and you can do no evil.”

Unfortunately, our twentieth century American morality has become largely subdued by this drivel. True morality has little to do with sex.

Are not these boys, and the many thousands like them throughout the nation, merely the juvenile counterparts of their more (or less) sophisticated elders who have appointed themselves guardians of the nation's morals?

mattachine REVIEW

Those people and organizations from which we hear constant cries of "obscenity," and other demands for censorship? And are not these people really trying to say, "Let's have no more of this silly sex education?"

The parent or teacher poisoned with this philosophy accomplishes a wierd and ironic purpose merely by maintaining a curious silence about sex. It is well past time that this silence were lifted.

Is not the great show of violence in American mass media simply the end product of our overwhelming and smothering sex censorship? And is it not true that these boys are taking the example laid down for them by their ultimate teachers—these same self-appointed guardians of the public morals -to its logical ending.

We have seen in this country queer-baiting all the way down from the floor of congress and the syndicated newspaper columnists to the monthly scandal mags and ultimately to the over-zealous vice officer and the boy in the street. They have all become allies in a vicious pursuit.

Then what can we expect from a mere child?

Only recently have some of the more liberal formers of public opinion be gun to lend an ear to other sides of the question. But they have not lent a big enough ear. In America we still confuse that which is "not sexual" with that which is "moral." And HONESTY has lost its meaning.

Because Mr. Hall still had honesty in his heart he met a horrible death. Life seems kinder to the hypocritical.■

A Sunday School Lesson

Condensed from the article 'DAVID AND JONATHAN' by A. d'Aunis in 'Arcadie'

That human tenderness which suffuses the Gospels is perhaps what one misses most in the Old Testament, where friendship is almost inexistent. About the only exception is the subject of this article: a friendship of whose homophile character there can be no doubt...

When the texts of the two Books of Samuel were set in their final form (ca. 700 B.C.), the author drew upon a diversity of sources, the most ancient of which were highly "poetized" and perhaps somewhat divergent. This re-