How pathetically pretentious is the article on the New Morality! It (Special Edition, June 16-20) purports to describe the New Morality without reference to the scientific contributions made by William Master and Virginia Johnson (Human Sexual Response) in the mid-60’s and afterwards.

Even as a description of the sexual mores of the 50’s, it fails since it totally ignores the impact of Havelock Ellis (The Psychology of Sex) whose theory of "erotic symbolism" led to greater tolerance for a wider range of sexual behaviors.

The article does not bring in Margaret Mead, but misidentifies the late museum curator as a sociologist and psychologist. In fact, Mead’s ideas on sex were based on the anthropological field work she conducted in Samoa, New Guinea, and the Admiralty Islands before World War II. Her book (Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies) was published in 1935.

The article belongs in the same sorry category as an article which promises to describe present-day communication technology but stops with the invention of black-and-white television.

ALEXIS N. ALFABETO