In the Eyes of the Beholders

Sir: All right, let's admit sex is great [July 11]! But when it hits you in the eye with belted monotony on the screen, in books, on the stage under the pretentious guise of the "new morality" (i.e., dressed-up smut) I find it quite tiresome. There's nothing funnier than a good dirty joke, and nothing flatter than a poor one. Seems to me, the plethora of poor ones going the rounds these days is all one hears. Who's laughing?

VIRGINIA U. PROUT

Greenwich, Conn.

Sir: How healthy that the subject of sex is now in the open. How sad that the sex act is no longer a private affair between two people.

MARY YARRISH

Hyattsville, Md.

Sir: John Wayne at 62, fully clothed, fat and half blind, is capable of generating more excitement, sexiness, tenderness, courage, humor, honesty, understanding, peace and, in the same breath, revolution in every man, woman or child who watches him on the screen for one performance than all the nudothespians of Hair, Che! and Oh! Calcutta! combined could produce on stage if they were to do their thing from now until the year 2010, when they reach the Grand Duke's age. Hell, they can't even compete with the fig leaf on TIME'S cover, which has more zip, unzippered, than either of the two characters posing behind it. By the way, which one is the good guy?

MRS. LAURENCE ANDREN

Cody, Wyo.

Sir: The enlightening aspect of the present revolution is not only that more pornography and erotic freedom are being allowed, but that, perhaps for the first time, "respectable" females are seeing, hearing or doing, without shame or guilt, what was, before, the privilege of only "bad girls" and men. Can we possibly hope to be witnessing the demise of the double standard?

If sexual revolutions have failed in the past, it may be because half the fighting force has always been left behind the lines, without rank or training. I would be bitter for myself and my female ancestors, but I'm too busy enjoying all this "good clean pornography" and getting rid of hang-ups.

MRS. J. M. JACOBSON

Edmonds, Wash.

Sir: Evangelist Billy Graham's chronicle of his descent into that 42nd Street pornographic Hades was very enlightening. I have always suspected that the Rev. Graham's interest in sex, as he says, ceased at 20; he has always struck me as such a clinically pure young man. And his mother raised him so correctly: I agree wholeheartedly that love can only exist "within the confines of marriage," as Graham says. I adore his word choice. Confine is such a good word. And his logic is still unsurpassed. Everyone knows that Adam and Eve's "rebellion against God" concerned more than the eating of an apple. Sex, I believe, was the issue. His observation is adroitly followed with the comment, "[sex is] something that God gave us." Ah, what a mystery is God--and Dr. Graham, for that matter.

PHIL BALESTRINO

Manhattan

Sir: You'd better unite and fight, you manufacturers of washing machines, dryers, irons, ironing boards, sewing machines, bleaches, detergents, spot removers, etc. We housewives might just begin to understand the synonymy of "nudity" and "freedom" and the many advantages derived therefrom!

MRS. ROBERT H. WAGHORNE

Baton Rouge, La.

Politics and the War

Sir: In the article "The War: Out By November 1970?" [July 11], TIME points out one of the reasons why the nation's youth have lost faith in American ideals. You state: "Nixon is worried that a continuation of the war could destroy Republican candidates in the 1970 mid-term congressional elections."

A young man is asked to serve his country, and perhaps sacrifice his life, for a cause of questionable morality and justice, while his President is worried about the irrelevant matter of the election of Republican candidates.

It is small wonder that young Americans are repelled by, and revolting against our values, priorities, insensitivity, and callous self-interest.

(MRS.) JANE R. TYRIE

Pittsburgh

The First Are the Last

Sir: Your perceptive article on the Havasupai Indians in Cataract Canyon [July 11] touched on problems not, unfortunately, limited to the "people who live by the blue-green water." The fact is that most reservation Indians are struggling mightily to overcome the decades of deprivation, dependence and despair. The reason: the first Americans are the last Americans when it comes to social and economic progress.

It is, however, unfair to singularly blame the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, which has admittedly in the past been highly bureaucratic and highhanded. The painful truth is that the various Congresses (which appropriate funds) and Administrations (which determine policy) have oftentimes been less than enlightened in their concern for and support of the American Indian.

PAUL FANNIN

U.S. Senator

Phoenix, Ariz.

Sir: So the Havasupai aren't status crazy, don't worship and are not slaves to the machine, don't make war or systematically poison the earth, and they practice sequential, or Hollywood-style, marriage.

Let's leave them alone in their real-life Shangri-La. Their way of life may be better than ours.

ED VAN DYNE

Troy, Pa.

First Crusader

Sir: Your piece on DDT [July 11] is an excellent summary of the controversy that has split American science for 20 years, and we are grateful to you. However, in stating that the National Audubon Society "has just joined the public crusade against DDT," you leave a highly erroneous impression.

National Audubon's President (now emeritus) John H. Baker was the first conservation leader to warn the nation of DDT's hazards, back in 1946. In 1958 Baker called DDT "the greatest hazard to life on earth" and called for a federal $25 million crash program of research; but he was labeled irrational and alarmist; the president of a large chemical company tore up his life membership in the Audubon Society.

From 1966 through 1969, Audubon endorsed, and used its Rachel Carson Fund to support, the court challenges to continued use of DDT which have been undertaken by the fundless Environmental Defense Fund.

My recent press conference simply took off from a record of years of stubborn fighting by National Audubon and announced an all-out effort to involve all 100,000 Audubon members and the general public in the final demise of DDT.

ELVIS J. STAHR

President

National Audubon Society

Manhattan

What So Proudly We Hailed . . .

Sir: I don't know why other people fly the American flag [July 11]; my husband and I keep one in our window because we don't "believe in the . . . values under attack" by student demonstrators. We don't think this makes us any less American. We don't believe that America belongs only to the warmakers, the exploiters, the bigots, the paranoids and the "don't rock our barbecue pit" gang. It also belongs to those of us who believe in peace, brotherhood, openness and the right of the individual to make his own life as long as he hurts no one else.

It's our flag too and, with Norman Thomas, we would rather wash it than burn it.

(MRS.) MARIAN H. NEUDEL

Chicago

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.