Gay people cannot reproduce and are “useless.” And what does the Bible say about it? To provoke a reaction, the gay author André Ratti began his article in a deliberately provocative way, which appeared anonymously fifty years ago in the National-Zeitung (NZ). With it, Switzerland seemed to have a homosexual activist who, much like Rosa von Praunheim, provoked but also sparked an important discussion about the acceptance of homosexuals in Switzerland.
What follows is not only about the article itself but also about the waves it generated. In the NZ, thirteen fairly detailed letters to the editor were published in response, and in the gay magazine “Du & Ich” the article was reprinted in March 1976, also accompanied by reader letters. A contemporary witness and member of HABS (Homosexuelle Arbeitsgruppen Basel) describes in vivid detail how his colleagues reacted to his coming out, which he announced through a letter to the NZ.
The Article of November 8, 1975
The article “Ueber die Zukunft der Homosexualität” appeared in the NZ’s weekend edition of November 8, 1975 (p. 1, 4). It was illustrated with the French comic “Teufelskreis der Angst” by Jean-Pierre Gos. The following is a summary of the text by the author (d.i. André Ratti), who, when he writes about homosexuals, means only male homosexuals:
There are “more women and men than ever before” who behave in an “actively homosexual” manner. The reasons for the ostracism and persecution lie in the fact that homosexuals do not reproduce and are therefore, population‑theoretically, “useless.” Sex is enjoyed without taking responsibility for children. “In addition, there is a sense of the ‘natural’ that heterosexuals feel especially deeply.” Even after legalization, the ostracism remains. Films, books, and newspaper articles have only led to a “pseudo-liberalization.”
Homosexuals “despise themselves less, have fewer guilt feelings” and now live “more openly and freely.” They have adapted and dress like other people. Interesting are certain “trends” such as promiscuity and anonymous sexual contacts in parks and saunas. In some bars and clubs dancing is now even permitted by police regulation. In train stations and restrooms one can meet young male hustlers, with gay sex generally taking place among his peers. SM is “a specifically sexual behavior” among homosexuals, in which the “fascist traits” appear conspicuously. Homosexuals “all know one another, for everyone has met someone somewhere or has had sexual contact with him.” Older homosexuals act as “lone wolves” who intrude upon the younger generation’s hunting grounds.
The hidden number of men who reject their disposition and do not live it out is large. Homosexual advocacy groups like HAZ (Homosexuelle Arbeitsgruppen Zürich) have only “little significance.” Lesbians are less visible. Homosexuals tend to confine themselves to sexuality — with “little room for emotionality and commitment.” Differences from heterosexuals in the desire “to love and to be loved” appear to be minimal. Gay sex is “to a certain degree” driven by addictive behavior.
Gay people are active in all professions — not only as “fashion designers (…) or artists.” Older homosexuals are described as “petty and bitter,” living lonely and embittered, and “putting on a stylish illness” or keeping a dog. In periods of greater liberalization, homosexuals are tolerated, but with a “tendency toward change,” they would end up back in prison. The “future of homosexuals” lies “exclusively in their own behavior” — how they structure their relationships and their sexuality and how they “incorporate heterosexual society into their lives.” They have “the chance to develop new patterns of interpersonal relationships” if sexuality is not pursued as an end in itself but practiced within the context of “emotionality and relationship.” One can learn to handle sexuality — independent of performance and consumption.
“The homosexuals could prove” that gender-specific role behavior can be left behind. “We need courage!” The homosexuals could completely reinvent concepts such as love and tolerance. But they would have to take the first step and say: “We are homosexual, but we are much more than that.”
The Author André Ratti
The article begins with the explanation that the author is homosexual but wishes to remain anonymous because “most of his fellow citizens cannot approve of his disposition.” This, however, need not stay that way, and perhaps then such an article “would not be necessary.” In this way, NZ pursued an emancipatory approach that remains unusual in questions of homosexuality, allowing a homosexual to speak for himself.
As part of my research, I learned from Basel-based gay rights activist Peter Thommen that the article originated from Swiss journalist André Ratti (1935–1986), who only came out in 1985 following AIDS, and who died of AIDS not long afterward. A posthumous work about him appeared: “I like living, I like dying” (1989).
The Letters of November 22, 1975
In two NZ issues, a total of 13 letters to the editor were published in response to Ratti’s article. They were introduced with the note that even “forceful” turns of phrase would remain unchanged. Collectively, they provide a good snapshot of the Zeitgeist of the 1970s. I will come back later to the first letter by HABS.
sculptor M. Roth laments missing positive points of identification and points to ancient times or to homosexual celebrities such as André Gide, Marcel Proust, and Benjamin Britten. Jürg Stauffer emphasizes that homosexuals should not be persecuted, but he also sees the danger of “seduction” of young people. For Erich Luder, Ratti’s text amounts to little more than a coming-out confession by a homosexual who cannot cope with his life. P. S. from Basel believes that while the author does clear away minor clichés, he introduces new and serious clichés through his reference to promiscuous, non-committal, and sadomasochistic homosexuals. Frans Wassenaar notes that the Catholic Church in Switzerland has decided to pursue a “positive homo-ministry,” and Harro Schön highlights the successes of the women’s movement and suggests that “a new world view” is coming from them rather than from homosexual men.
The Letters of November 29, 1975
In the November 29, 1975 issue, six more letters appeared. A “Homo” from St. Gallen criticized the still-existing “pink lists” and referred to the groundbreaking study “Der gewöhnliche Homosexuelle” by Martin Dannecker and Reimut Reiche, published not long before. Hanns H. Hänni criticized the anonymous publication and the equation of homosexuality with SM. The abstract appeal to be brave, in his view, is like advice to a drowning person to learn to swim.
The lesbian I. A criticized that the author presents sex as an addiction. She emphasizes that for her and others it is about “love, fidelity, and security,” and recommends Norman Pittenger’s book “Time to Understand” (1971) — subtitled “A Christian’s Plea on the Problem of Homosexuality” — as one of the first theological works to advocate full acceptance of same-sex relationships. A Cornelia points to negative experiences with heterosexual men and to her deep friendship with her “homosexual friend,” who could be a model for less masculine men. Hannes Bertschi assumes that, because of Ratti’s article, a large portion of the population will still be provoked today. For pastor Fritz Schneider, it was “a word spoken at the right time,” and he is glad that theological topics are being taken up.
The Basel Movement in the Seventies
The article and the responses to it should be understood in the context of Basel’s early homosexual movement, which was significantly shaped by the HABS founded in 1972. On the occasion of their 40th anniversary, HABS published an online brochure “History, Events and News from 40 Years” (2012) about Basel’s gay history in this period.
The discussions about the seventies also treat the NZ article and the accompanying letters to the editor (p. 15). The first of the letters reprinted was from HABS, which highlighted their political work and indirectly criticized the author for not naming his own name. To lead by example, 26 HABS members finally came out with their full names at the end of the letter.
How much courage was required in 1975 is probably hard to grasp today. Among these brave members was also Peter Thommen and Ueli Tschamper, for whose support I would like to express my explicit gratitude for this piece.
Ueli Tschamper used the NZ reader letter for his coming out
The member Ueli Tschamper recounts in the brochure (p. 15), 37 years later, how his workplace colleagues reacted to his coming out in the NZ in 1975. The reader letter appeared on Saturday, November 22, 1975. When he went to work the following Monday, a coworker congratulated him and said, “I know you’re not one of those who seduce little boys.” Another colleague “cried, thinking that hard times lay ahead for him.” Most stayed silent. For Ueli Tschamper, there was more admiration than rejection; he feared no reprisals.
The Reprint in “Du & Ich”
In the homosexual magazine “Du & Ich” (1976, March, pp. 16-19), Ratti’s article was published in full, including the subheadings. The original headline “Ueber die Zukunft der Homosexualität” was here rendered as “We Need Courage! Thoughts on the Future of Homosexuality.” This gave the text a different slant, which is understandable given the different audience. It was illustrated with several naked men as eye catchers. The “Du & Ich” editors also stressed that the text is not merely “an urgent appeal to the heterosexual society” but “also a call to all homosexuals to reflect critically on their own behavior.” It is likely that the text entered the Swiss publisher Alexander Ziegler’s sphere (1944–1987), who was editor-in-chief of the magazine from 1971 to 1979.
The article produced only two reader letters: In the June 1976 issue, HABS member Peter Fertig regrets that there has still been no meeting with the author by February 1976, and in the July issue Ekkehard T. from Dortmund wishes for more self-esteem among gay people, rather than “isolation and martyrdom.” I would like to thank the staff of the Centrum Schwule Geschichte for the research into “Du & Ich.”
Peter Thommen remembers André Ratti and the NZ
The former HABS activist Peter Thommen recalls:
My acquaintance with André Ratti began at a meeting of a handful of HABS people with the initially unknown author of the “National-Zeitung.” The group had responded to the article with a reader letter, and Ratti suggested a face-to-face meeting. The reaction within HABS was significant, and we wanted to discuss this with him. In his article, he referred to the HAZ in Zürich, while we in Basel were somewhat more relaxed. The meeting took place at my apartment at the time. André Ratti worked for Swiss television in Zürich, as it turned out. He was a science editor or a trained bookseller and apparently had no contacts with the gay movement there. In conversation, it became clear that Ratti wanted to “wake things up” because he wanted to change something about his own situation. His text, for me, is something like the “reflections of a nonpolitical person.” In the following years I lost sight of him, only meeting him again in the eighties in my bookshop Arcados. He was a Basel native and would come by the shop here to gather information. I had been active in the early HABS and worked to establish their political footing in Basel.
Assessment of the Editors’ Conduct
The NZ editorial practice suggests a fairly open stance. It is commendable that they allowed a homosexual to speak for himself. The selection of reader letters — no outright rejection letters were published — supports my impression of an emancipatory underlying approach by the editorial staff at that time. The reader letters from November 22, 1975 were illustrated with a photo of a church wedding of two men in San Francisco, which, together with the heading “Future of Homosexuality,” pointed to a possible future in Switzerland in which homosexuals could marry. The editors’ statement that homosexuals should “critically examine their own behavior” seems accusatory, but it merely reflects the author’s statements. The editors’ note about homosexuals’ supposed lack of “bonding capacity” does not constitute a critique of homosexuality itself. The editorial described homosexuality as a delicate but discussable topic (November 22), which could appear brave and came across as benevolent and patient.
According to Peter Thommen, in 1975 the NZ’s political orientation was left-liberal. This changed in 1977 with the merger with the bourgeois-conservative “Basler Nachrichten” to the Basler Zeitung. In later years after the merger there were, Thommen says, also problems when the HABS wanted to place an advertisement.
The queer community needs a strong journalistic voice — especially now! Make your contribution to secure TheColu.mn’s work.
A Writer’s Assessment
Since Rosa von Praunheim and his film “Not the Perverse, but the Situation of the Homosexual” (1971), we know that provocative statements can effectively trigger gay people to draw attention to shortcomings. André Ratti apparently aimed to shake things up with his text as well, pointing to public toilets as a site of sexual activity that appears to confirm prejudices. His insinuations, such as claims that homosexual sexuality is driven by a compulsion, that there is a special gay fondness for SM, and that the “fascist traits” of the leather subculture are conspicuous, were too sweeping to count as constructive criticism. His view of sexuality was morally charged but not moralizing. The notion that sexuality should be emotionally bound is a legitimate stance. The call “We need courage!” is one that anyone could sign. Overall, the piece analyzes mostly phenomena of its time; the heading “Future of Homosexuality” fits only imperfectly. In sum, the contribution seems well-intentioned — whether it is truly well-executed depends on one’s perspective.
The critique of Ratti’s text, as clearly shown in a portion of the reader letters, resonates with me. Ratti urged others to be brave, yet he published his piece anonymously. He spoke only of tolerance, not of acceptance. Lesbians were mentioned only in passing. The HABS’s irritations are understandable, for a writer who stood outside the homosexual movement pointed out that this movement had achieved few measurable successes to date. Even assuming that Ratti wished to provoke with his sharp formulations and may have drawn inspiration from Rosa von Praunheim, there remain content weaknesses in his argument from my vantage point.
One can also judge Ratti’s text by its impact. Not every author managed to place a major emancipatory article in the mainstream press at that time, thereby helping to de-taboo homosexuality for a broad audience. With a largely favorable reception, he managed to reach a broad swath of Swiss society — a notable accomplishment for André Ratti.
Moreover, I find Ratti’s text inspiring in two ways: first, for how people in the 1970s imagined the future for homosexuals — which is to say, the present we live in today. Second, it invites us to imagine how we might envision the future for queer people in 50 or 100 years. How will we relate to one another socially and sexually? Where will we meet? How might politics and society change? Will the queer movement become obsolete in the future?
