LETTERS

The views expressed here those of the writers. ONE's readers cover a wide range of geographical, economic, age, and educational status. This department aims to express this diversity.

When Dr. Ellis submitted his manuscript "Are Homosexuals Necessarily Neurotic?" which subsequently appeared in our April issue, his accompanying letter asserted, "print this and let the fur fly."

Of course Dr. Ellis was right; the response has been vigorous and of such tremendous volume that we are devoting almost all of the allotted letter space this month to comments by our readers on Dr. Ellis' article. More recent replies will appear in later issues.

Dear Sirs:

I think you have an excellent magazine and to keep it so, you must continue to print all angles and ideas.

I never, in my life, read such a mixed up idea on neurosis. I've been reading Dr. Albert Ellis' name for some years but hadn't happened on too much of his thinking. God help me if this article he wrote in the April issue is supposed to be good sane thinking and is representative of thinking done by people who are supposed to be leading psychologists. All I can say is if this is good sane thinking I'd sooner be neurotic. This is not an admission that I think I am. It seems to me that this type of thinking would greatly upset the majority of heterosexual people, as well as the homosexual majority. I think this type of thinking should make us realize that psychologists and psychiatrists are just human beings and just as capable of erring in their thinking as anyone else. It seems to me that if you glean carefully you can read an excuse that Dr. Ellis is carefully setting up for himself.

Why don't we just accept harmless action without always thinking we must build up some kind of excuse if they think someone else won't understand and tolerate their action. An excuse, to me, always spells out a guilt complex about our action. I definitely agree with David L. Freeman and Chris Rezak and even though none of us are infallible in our thinking, I think these two authors are 90% closer to the truth than Dr. Ellis.

Why don't some of our supposed to be great psychologists and psychiatrists take the word of some of the homosexuals in their theorizing on homosexuality. They

one

might come closer to some true facts about homosexuality than they are. It wouldn't be fair for homosexuals to theorize on the heterosexual world and I think the opposite holds true also. I think it's time for psychologists and psychiatrists to stop thinking homosexuals would all just take a selfish attitude in their thinking when theorizing on homosexuality.

I have always been much impressed with "The Feminine Viewpoint" and hope we can encourage our feminine counterpart to do more writing.

Gentlemen:

Mr. C.

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

Herewith a layman's rebuttal to Dr. Ellis' article "Are Homosexuals Necessarily Neurotic?"

One wonders just what is the norm on Dr. Ellis' scale which appears to slide from neurotic to neurotic. He states that an individual is neurotic if "his sex desires are exclusively oriented toward members of his own sex." My dictionary tells me "to orient" means to adjust or correct by referring to first principles. If we go along with Dr. Ellis, there are no first principles since he calls the exclusive heterosexual neurotic also. Therefore, away from what first principle is the homosexual oriented? How do we recognize or diagnose the neurotic if we have no constant by which to evaluate him?

Dr. Ellis envisions a neurosis-free adjusted being as one capable of all feeling and experience, with no exclusive interests or desires. In short, an individual completely obscured by experience and environment.

18