ual because sex isn't involved. What they really are is homogenderal, meaning of the same gender. If we could get this word incorporated into the English language it would clarify a lot. There are simply innumer- able experiences between people which could be described as hetero or homo genderal because sex is no way involved. But since we do not rea- lize that sex and gender are two different aspects of living we have to use a word with sex in it for lack of a more fitting term. It would be silly to describe a bridge party of females as homosexual. But homogenderal would not only be correct but it should be as acceptable a term as homo- geneous, meaning all the same or alike. Such a group would be homo- geneous as to gender though not necessarily as to age, religion, marital status or other matters.

So I think it comes down to our each of us having to decide what is homosexuality, and what is a homosexual experience and why. If we did this, then any activities, that we may find ourselves involved in, which do not fall within that definition, are not something to be all concerned about. My whole purpose in this editorial is to try to help those who read it, to think about the subject more logically and more clearly, with the end hope that they will be able to put everything in the right per- spective and relationship, so that whatever they may do they can enjoy themselves without stepping over the boundaries either of social prop- riety or of their own self acceptance, for surely there is no point in hav- ing a guideline for yourself and then stepping over it and feeling guilty because you did.

*

While I am writing on the subject of homosexuality there is another aspect of it unrelated to the above that I would like to discuss a bit. Many FPs are so uptight about the subject that I have lost friend in the past for writing or talking about it. Possibly I'll lose some more from this editorial. If I do it will be because I have gotten too close to their defense mechanisms, put forward a thought directly in conflict with some of theirs or violated one of the sacred taboos involved in their personality structure. I do not directly seek to do any of these but like- wise I cannot avoid its occurring if the individual is so ordered that my words do have that effect. My only purpose in this or any other editorial is to try to inject some more serious and thought provoking material into TVia than the fantasyland which is so necessary and so dear to most FPs.

88