Editor:

Anthony Ashley's "Antennas up... columnist gets good vibes" (Mutato, April 11) denotes a disturbing lack of respect for fellow human beings.

The article implies that good-looking people are "so gay," and heterosexuals are not so "beautiful" people. Why is one's beauty a prerequisite for sexual orientation?

Ashley defines "gaydar" as "the intuitive force that allows gay men to recognize one another," according to "Cassell's Queer Companion." Not only is Cassell's definition exclusionary of women, but it is also contradicted later in the article when Ashley says that one may use "gaydar" to pick out homosexual women in one's environment.

This focus on sexual orientation and "hottieness" devalues a man's personality and worth as a human being. It is disappointing that meeting a new man is about sex first, rather than getting to know someone's personality and experiences in order to form a solid relationship.

It's disturbing the article celebrates heterosexual envying of a homosexual's "gaydar" capability. It is disturbing both heterosexuals and homosexuals would focus only on a person's "... age, color, ethnicity, gender, national origin, disability or handicap, race, religion or sexual orientation..." (from the UA Affirmative Action Statement). To focus on any aspect of a person is to lose perspective.

To approach a fellow human and introduce yourself by telling him he looked "fierce and manly in those chaps" may not just embarrass him. He may feel violated, insulted, degraded and like a piece of meat. Furthermore, to violate a person's privacy by searching through personal belongings in order to find out their sexual orientation is the type of illegal action that creates fear and tension between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

To refer to heterosexuals as "breeders" implies that homosexuals do not choose to participate in the making of new life. This also implies that heterosexuals never choose to stay single, or that all heterosexuals have children. This type of stereotype is what can create disparaging labels.

Ashley's article disrespects human life and personality. It abuses human sexuality, and steps backwards in the attempt to interact in a healthy and loving manner.

Mary Calahan
English senior