entations”? Well, I didn’t know eitherrnbefore I read these books. Fetishism is arnpreference for achieving sexual excitementrnby using things like articles ofrnclothing (such as women’s underwear,rnshoes, and boots) and, more rarely, partsrnof the human body (such as hair orrnnails). Transvestism is recurrent andrnpersistent cross-dressing in women’srnclothes by males for sexual excitement—rninterference with which, we are told, resultsrnin “intense frustration.” The essentialrnfeature of zoophilia is the use ofrnanimals to achieve sexual excitement,rnusually an animal one had contact withrnas a child, “such as a household pet orrnfarm animal.” Pedophilia is the act orrnfantasy of engaging in sexual activityrnwith prepubertal children. Exhibitionismrnis repetitive exposure of the genitalsrnto an unsuspecting stranger to achievernsexual excitement—the purpose beingrnto surprise or shock. Voyeurism is repetitivernlooking at unsuspecting people,rnusually strangers, who are either naked,rnin the act of disrobing, or engaging inrnsexual activity, to, again, achieve sexualrnexcitement. Sexual masochism is sexualrnC-xcitement produced in an individualrnby his or her own suffering—such as beingrnhumiliated, bound, raped, selfmutilated,rnor beaten. And sexual sadismrnis the infliction of physical or psychologicalrnsuffering (sometimes includingrndeath) on another person to achieve sexualrnexcitement.rnIn addition, there is a category of sexualrn”orientations” known as “atypicalrnparaphilia,” which include: coprophiliarn(feces); frotteurism (rubbing); klismaphiliarn(enema); mysophilia (filth);rnnecrophilia (corpse); telephone seatologiarn(lewdness); and urophilia (urine).rnNow, again, at the risk of appearing to bernsome kind of “phobe,” senator, I would,rnnevertheless, respectfully urge you tornconsider whether having indix’idualsrnwith such sexual “orientations” in ourrnmilitary, legally and openly, might possiblyrncreate some problems.rnFetishists? There are now a lot ofrnwomen in the military who wear underwearrnand boots, and who have nails andrnhair. The danger here is obvious. Transvestites?rnDitto, another obvious dangerrnmade even more real by fetishists. Put arnfetishist in a fox hole with a cross-dressingrntransvestite and—presto!—he couldrnimmediately be attracted to the underwear,rnboots, nails, and hair of his buddy,rnwho he would naturally think is a woman.rnThe nightmare scenario would, ofrncourse, be a cross-dressing, transvestiternfetishist who would become obsessedrnwith his own underwear, boots, nails,rnand hair. If this individual was a commandingrnofficer, an entire unit could bernparalyzed—with the result being a missionrnin serious trouble.rnZoophiliacs? More trouble. Your unitrnis pinned down in a rural area, temporarilyrnoccupying a farm. There arernmany animals on this farm, which somernof the zoophiliacs among you had asrnchildhood pets. Use vour imagination,rnsenator. It wouldn’t be pretty. Pedophiles?rnBig trouble. Your unit entersrna town in, say, Somalia. As always, numerousrnyoung children mob your unit torngreet the troops. The pedophiles amongrnyou start fantasizing or acting on theirrnfantasies. Either way, as I say, big trouble.rnScreaming kids. Outraged parents.rnUncle Sam’s good name is besmirchedrnaround the world.rnExhibitionists? Your unit is in a townrnto, among other things, create somerngood will among the local populacernwithout which you cannot successfullyrnconduct your operation. Suddenly, anrnout-of-the-closet, now-legally-in-themilitaryrnexhibitionist is mooning a grouprnof local citizens, or worse. This wouldrnnot be good. Voyeurs? Many militaryrnbases have on-base housing for marriedrncouples. With voyeurism now legal,rnthere would be an epidemic of peepingrntomism, without a doubt. The “right tornprivacy” would be abolished. The Constitutionrnwould be a dead letter. Sexualrnmasochists? Sexual sadists? Allow themrnlegally to be in our Armed Forces, andrnout of the closet, and the barracks willrnlook like your typical leather bar or bathrnhouse in San Francisco on a busy weekend.rnCoprophiliacs? A visit to your averagernmilitary rest room would be unbelievablyrndisgusting and very unhealthy.rnFrotteurists? Men and women “rubbing”rnone another for sexual thrills? Nornway. Chaos. Klismaphiliaes? Enemasrnthat sexually excite? The infirmaryrnwould be a most dangerous place to visit.rnMysophiliacs? Filth for sexual gratification?rnFilthy, indeed! Necrophiliacs?rnSex with dead people? The battlefieldrnwould be exceptionally nauseating.rnTelephone scatologics? Increasing numbersrnof personnel would refuse to answerrntheir telephones, both in the officernand in the field. Communications wouldrnbe totally disrupted. Urophiliacs? Outrnof the question.rnAnd there are, alas, many, many morernsuch sexual “orientations,” senator. Lotsrnmore, sir—such questionable practicesrnas: “nymphomania,” women who choosernto have sex with many partners; “contrectation,”rnthe impulse to touchrnmembers of the opposite sex indiscriminatelyrn(some senators seem to sufferrnfrom this “orientation”); “pyromania,”rnthe setting of fires for sexual kicks;rn”zoosadism,” cruelty to animals forrnsexual satisfaction; “nympholepsy,” arntrance-like state induced by eroticrndaydreams; and, last and certainly least,rn”osphresiophilia,” where certain odorsrnsexually excite the sniffer. But I knowrnyou’re a busy man, so I won’t go intorndetail about the potential hazards ofrnallowing such alternative sexual lifestylern”orientations,” legally and openly, inrnour military.rnIn conclusion, senator, I would urgernyou to please reconsider your view concerningrnour military that “we should notrnhave a policy that discriminates andrnkicks people out because of their sexualrnorientation.” If, however, you continuernto stand by your Today show statement,rnand see nothing wrong with the aforementionedrn”orientations,” believing thatrnsuch individuals can serve in our ArmedrnForces with no degradation of the efficiencyrnof these forces, then I would say,rnsir—as a layman—that you would appearrnto be performing what the Encyclopediarnof Aberrations calls a “schizoidrnmaneuver,” which is defined as: “Thernmental distortion of an unpalatable reality,rnexternal or internal, into somethingrnmore acceptable to the individual.”rnJohn Lofton is editor and publisher ofrn”The Lofton Letter,” a monthlyrnnewsletter that looks at life from anrnorthodox Christian perspective.rn50/CHRONICLESrnrnrn