—

There's nothing more abhorrent to me than a be-skirted, made-up man who shows no femininity in his TV performance. I guess I'm old fashioned enough to still dream of feminine women and masculine men—to think that the outer-girl we create is the indispensable container from which our heart emits all the feelings that as men we have not been able, nor been permitted to express. In other words, the girl-within must also become the "girl-without" (and excuse the hidden pun). She must not only look as her GG sisters do, but act as they do as well. At this point, some of my TV friends, might rightly ask: why must this be so? Why should I shove into a corner my masculine habits and adopt new ones? Isn't it enough just to dress-up? I suppose some TV's feel this way. they most certainly act as if they felt this way . . . they are still Tom and Dick and Harry . . . the only difference is that they are wearing a dress. If that's what they want . . . fine. But what about stepping out of doors? What about going to the corner drugstore? Or what about meeting non- TV's at a social occasion? The going out business demands "passing" -demands acting exactly the way a GG would act in similar circum- stances the social meeting with non-TV's may not demand "passing" but it most certainly places upon the TV what I have called all along: "esthetic responsibility” . . . the TV has no right to inflict upon others: shock-digust-grotesqueness. So he ought to behave just as he would if he were having lunch at the Waldorf Astoria.

So far, so good. My theory seems to hold water. What to do? In order to act GG—to walk GG—to behave GG—one must practice. One must do it as often as possible, and even oftener, without let up. Only thus can we create a passable personality that will "pass" in the street and will be esthetically pleasant to our circle of non-TV friends. But-and here lurks a danger: What has been happening to the boy-within during this intensive learning and training carried out by the girl-within? Let us assume that he is such a perfectly developed masculine entity that no matter how wide he opens the gates of the feminine world no part of his masculine structure will be weakened. In this case "her" growth can be a gain for the "total ego” and Sheila is right! But . . . if he is not a per- fectly developed masculine entity. . . if there are termites in the wood- work... then the feminine foundations, while being reinforced and strengthened, will eventually create ever-widening cracks in his founda- tions which will in turn provoke the collapse of the entire masculine structure. I am not saying that this is so . . . just that it “might” be so. So, if we start with some none-to-firm masculine machinery then there's the danger that "she" will not enrich the overall personality, but will instead create for herself something new—using of course such parts of

82