To the editors:

In the February 7 issue of the Reader, in the article about Michael Jackson, Bill Wyman justifies his asking “uncomfortable, prying questions” because “we all have a stake in the survival of our artists” and Jackson’s lack of a “discernible sex life is one that begs to be examined . . . ”

I fail to understand how my knowledge about Jackson’s sex life, even if it were to be complete, will contribute in any way to his survival, either as an artist or not. I don’t think it is any of my business and I don’t think it is any of Bill Wyman’s business either. I don’t care, why does he? Does he really believe that the satisfaction of his prurient inquiry is going to help Jackson’s survival, or anyone else’s?

Joy Calhoun

Glen Ellyn