control and balance while the "abnormal" goes "overboard;" thus while we are all attracted to shiny objects, only the kleptomaniac steals them. So far, so good. Then we are told that the compulsive homosexual, the "exaggerated" heterosexual, and the child seducer, are all in the same boat. Quite plausible, indeed-but who is this "compulsive homosexual," who has not hitherto been introduced to the scene? Does Miss Valentine mean that no homosexual can control the time, place, or degree of expression of his or her sexual drive-or is she referring only to those who can't? The first statement is patently not true but if it is the second version that she has in mind, this considerably narrows the scope of the "abnormal." There is some precedent for this confusion (the word "compulsive" has been used notably by Dr. Albert Ellis to refer to all exclusive homosexuals) but confusion it remains.

4. It becomes increasingly difficult as one pursues Miss Valentine's article to know just what she is condemning. Is it sexual gratification as such? Is it an undefined "excess" of such gratification? Or is it "complete license?" Surely her own argument for lumping together the homosexual with the child molester might easily be interpreted as being one step closer to complete license than the position of the rest of us.

5. It is Miss Valentine's privilege to believe in a Cosmic Scheme as the goal of evolution. It is not her privilege to set up this Scheme as "actual fact" in contrast to the "arbitrary facts" set up by (other) men. In so doing, she becomes as arbitrary as they-and to all appearances, more so.

In conclusion, it would have greatly clarified the meaning of Miss Valentine's article if she had spelled out for us just what kinds of action, specifically in the sexual sphere, she feels will lead to the "maximum benefit of the greatest number of people." In what way and to what degree would she have us "bring out instincts under control?" Surely the vast majority of thinking persons, homosexual and heterosexual alike, can not but agree with her generalization-but it is a generalization. Those of us who believe in a moral code that distinguishes between mutual love, on the one hand, and forceful seduction, whether of the young or the old, on the other, are giving substance to her generalization. In all logic, she should welcome us into her camp!

Mr. Jim Egan of Canada writes: While I have no doubt that the mature and thinking homosexual will dismiss Miss Cristina Midence Valentine's recent article with an amused smile and complete rejection of it's basic premise, I am appalled at the effect it may have upon the thinking of any younger and less experienced homosexual who may be already in the throes of conflict regarding his nature.

Such a mixture of ignorance of basic facts, fantastic assumptions, and distorted reasoning would be hard to equal this side of Edmund Bergler. To begin with, there is absolutely no justification at all for the comparison of homosexuality and child molestation, prostitution, dope addiction, alcoholism and "other misfits."

The statement that the homosexual has no right to sexual expression unless such right is equally given to the child molester is utterly bereft of all reason and since several readers have already fully covered the various points involved there seems little use in repeating them here and scant chance of convincing Miss V. of their validity.

I haven't the faintest idea as to how many homosexuals Miss V. has

one

6