Your Letters

Please note that any letters received by us at Gay News are liable to be published unless you state otherwise.

Whoops!

4, Hamilton Close,
London NW8

Dear Sir,

Just to let you know, as calmly and sweetly as the situation permits, that the beautiful back photo on p7 of GN 10 is by me, repeat me. It is nothing to do with the journal called GAY TIMES, to which it is acknowledged, except insofar as they have printed it once, without bothering to acknowledge it at all.

The model, being well over 21, when this picture was taken, will no doubt be having the last laugh when he sees it used as an illustration on this particular subject!

Yours faithfully,

Karry Knight

Feminism is a Drag

Co Dublin,
Ireland.

Dear Sir,

Please find enclosed my renewed subscription to Gay News.

I think it is a super production, but I sometimes get very depressed when I read all about the persecutions, prosecutions and the drag scene. The latter is stupidly too feminine for my liking and spoils the true concept of a homosexual.

In GN8 you had a short article on pederasts. Well, I’m afraid I’m one and as someone said in your paper, I must have a very sick mind. Maybe I have, but I have never approached or molested a child in my life, nor do I intend to. It’s far too dangerous to do and would spoil that child’s future. I reckon my mind isn’t as sick as those that dress up as women and those that act and address each other in female terms. They just cannot appreciate the male form.

For some years now I have adored, from a distance. boys of the ages 12 to 16 years. I think their faces, in most cases, are the prettiest of any human, their build just perfect. To me the body of a man is revolting and I would rather die than share a bed with one and likewise the thought of buggery is nauseating. My dream would be in the position of being able to kiss a boy from head to toe and no more.

I have never met a homosexual person in my life. Maybe because I don’t look for one. I have read many books and magazines which I often find revolting, but sometimes get satisfaction in seeing magazines of nude boys. I have never seen a real live body of a nude boy since I was a kid myself. I would really give anything, and I mean this, to see one and be with one. I have often felt like advertising, but realised it would be stupid because of the law.

It is terribly frustrating to look at a boy and not be able to touch him even though you don’t intend him any harm…

It is the first time I have ever written to a paper or a magazine. Gay News is the most advanced paper I have come across and I sincerely wish you continued success and safety.

Yours sincerely,

VJM

Beware Of Longford

Dear Gay News,

I was so enraged to see that letter in GN9 by HRA (whoever the hell he is) condemning the picture of Longford and Cliff Richard that I felt compelled to write. I reject any notion that it was in “appalling bad taste”. I found it was very funny, and it made my day. Thank God someone has got a sense of humour.

I must admit that Lord Longford has always been a source of amusement to me, but that hit the bull. If it was mocking, then it was justified. If HRA is offended by the sight of a prick, then I feel sorry for him, he’s missing out on a hell of a lot!

Going back to Lord Longford as a person, it must be admitted that he indeed has a social conscience, but his idea of ‘helping’ is ludicrous, and even frightening. All that he believes in centres around sex, pornography etc; he seems to have it on the brain (which sounds bloody uncomfortable to me). People associate him with pornography, because every time we hear about him he rattles on about it. True, he might ‘help’ drop-outs, but then I could give you a list as long as your… no, longer, of people who devote their whole life to helping in the true sense of the word.

In case anybody did not realise, Lord Longford is officially a nothing. Despite the title and the fact that he can gas away in the House of Lords, he is only one person, and represents nobody – as an MP does. He is a member of a chamber that is not elected, therefore undemocratic, and unrepresentative. He is one of the many one-time officials that are put out to grass in the Lords. He has the advantage of assuming importance so that the Government could well take notice of his monstrous report.

For anyone who knows what freedom of expression is, beware, because if Longford gets his way, you’ll lose what you’re just getting.

Although it is only one little aspect of the subject, if Oz offends someone, don’t read it. If Oh! Calcutta! depraves, don’t look at it. And if the children are going to be corrupted, the goddamn parents can make sure that they only see what’s OK till they’re old enough to judge. After all, nothing will survive unless there is the demand.

Sorry this letter is so long and rambling, but let me end on a serious note. Well done to all the collective, you’re doing a great job. I’d send some money, but I’m out of a job and I’m broke; never mind, it’s the thought that counts.

Adrian.

How To Sell More GN

Dear Gay News,

One way to encourage more people to read GN (re: editorial in GN9) is for regular readers never to throw away a copy. Every copy can be left in a public place, trains and buses being the most convenient, rather than the dustbin.

Now that the paper is well-established, borough librarians could be expected to consider requests for the paper in public libraries; or is that asking too much?

JE

ED: The best way to get Gay News into public libraries is for GN readers to demand that their librarians order it and put it on display.

CHE And Tight Foreskins

Leeds

Dear Gay News,

I have recently been reading your paper which I find very interesting. There are two points from recent issues about which I would like to comment:

Firstly, someone seems to think that membership of CHE is limited to those over 21. This is not the case, though a particular local group may, if it so wishes, restrict its membership in this way. (Leeds does NOT).

Secondly, the tight foreskin problem. As an (ex) fellow sufferer, I read about this with real feeling. I suggest that unless the problem is quite exceptional the easiest and most natural method is best (I detest surgery). The method is to use a dropper with olive oil on it, drop into the problem area and very gently ease it to and fro. If this is done two or three times a week, for a month or so, you will soon find it can be pushed right back, washed, and the hood slid back with just a touch of oil for lubrication. The worst is then over, an occasional working to and fro and all will be fine (it was with me anyhow). This method was recommended by a doctor.

All good wishes.

Henry Giles Leeds Chairman, CHE

Shoddy Performance

London W8

Dear Sir,

David Lutyens’s review of my book One In Twenty in GN8 is incompetent and absurd; he cannot have actually read the book at all. He says I deplore the fact that there are no serious homosexuals. But I do no such thing – on the contrary in Chapter Four I devote a whole page to listing homosexuals of genius, including nearly all those Mr Lutyens mentions himself, plus a great many more. In fact all that he fulminates against me for not mentioning, I do, and discuss at length: that every woman has a masculine side and every man a feminine side; that homosexuality is found in primitive as well as advanced cultures and so on.

He does not tell your readers who publishes the book (Seeker and Warburg), nor how much it costs (£1.50). He discusses it as if it were a new book, when in fact it was published six years ago, when homosexual acts between adult males were still crimes and the whole social atmosphere surrounding the subject was quite different from today. He misspells my name throughout the review. In fact, he gets everything wrong. What a shoddy performance!

Bryan Magee

ED: If any other reader would care to review One In Twenty, we will gladly print it.

Your Letters continued on page 6.

How Liberal We Are

“One In Twenty” By Brian Magee

Anyone who is not a positive nut-case can see easily enough through the filth of Reuben’s squalid and shameful little book. The array of vegetables and kitchen utensils supposedly used in sex is so absurd that one can only feel happy the street theatre of G.L.F. in one of its less crazy moments guyed this pernicious nonsense.

But Brian Magee’s book is couched in seemingly such reasonable terms, I feel like adapting to it the term of Mark Antony in his funeral oration over Caesar “but Brutus is an honourable man, all honourable men.” How sorry he is for a poor homosexual who cannot bring his love to a B.B.C. or television House party or dance. Why the hell not! He goes to “gay” clubs, spends the evening there and reaches the amazing realisation that, after all, this love is not unnatural and abnormal.

Whenever I see the word “normal” my hackles rise. As someone fairly proficient in existentialist and phenomenologist types of thinking, I believe that abstract universal do not apply to any concrete and particular individual. A tree, a book, a shoe is nothing but itself. Man, on the other hand, is a combination of choices, each unique and gratuitous. There is no universal precedent for right action, because all actions are unique and singular outcomes of choice.

Brian Magee so generously deplores the fact that there are no serious homosexuals. I need not embarass my readers by quoting examples to the opposite from twenty civilisations. Is he so happy not to be Leonardo, or MichelAngelo, or Plato, or Winckelmann, or Christopher Marlowe, or, in more modern times, Proust, Gide, Cocteau? What is, in fact, remarkable is not how few serious homosexuals there are but how vast in every significant field of achievement their contribution to art, science, music, the theatre, ballet and philosophy is!

He is patronising to such an extent that he seems never to have realised either that every woman has a masculine side (ANIMUS) and every man a feminine side (ANIMA). He seems to have no idea of the incidence of homosexuality in all primitive as well as advanced cultures, nor sub-cultures nor all species from self-pollinating plants up to the anthropoids. How much wiser Goethe was who said far from being a perversion, homosexuality in its noble-love and ideal friendship went a long way to accounting for the glory of Greece and the greatness of Rome.

But Magee is even more vicious when, seeming so compassionate, he deplores that so many of his friends endure the degradation of cruising and cottaging. Since the Law forbids homosexuals to contact each other and noble Welfare workers have organised clubs and societies where they can meet even if they are at present breaking an insane law, it is because they care for human beings not to express, as Magee does, the gladness of being heterosexual.

More vicious still, this loathsome and repulsive book, the only book I have ever destroyed because of its underhand hostility marked by generous concern, is as repulsive as a film like “Detective” which theoretically attacks homosexual persecution but shows every homosexual in the film as a chronic or potential psychopath or the sort of fairy that no homosexual I know, certainly not myself, would look at twice. Out and out lunatics like Reuben are easy to deal with; but people like Magee are the real enemy. They want to present us as shallow frivolous moral morons but they put it in such charming, apparently reasonable terms that one friend of mine became through reading the Magee book so hostile to homosexuals saying “he deals with the average sort, not the few geniuses,” it provoked in me a real sense of waste. Above all, beware of the enemy posing as a liberal.