Bill Weintraub

Re: A Box That Fits

7-15-2006

Hey Boomer

You said: "I do not want men in the movement to be caught into the overdone trap of using guys with feminine mannerisms as scapegoats..."

Who's doing that?

Who's using the effeminate as scapegoats?

What we've said is that we reject effeminacy in our own lives.

That's because we're Masculine and we don't want to be something that we're not.

Which we're incessantly pressured to be.

Where's the concern over that?

And we've said that effeminacy is both a consequence of and facilitates anal penetration.

Which kills gay men.

Once again, and for the zillionth time, the violence in gay male life comes out of anal and analism.

NOT US.

We don't hurt anyone.

By contrast, nothing quite scapegoats a gay man like giving him HIV.

Or treating him like a woman.

When he's actually a man.

Once again, the imbalance between what the Frot Movement advocates, and what analism carries out, is so great as to be grotesque.

And Robert Loring, the person in the Alliance who's been the most eloquent spokesman for masculinity, has consistently referred to effeminized males as "brothers," and encouraged them to reclaim their Masculinity.

Which if they are to thrive they must do.

As for me, all I'm doing -- and all I've done all my life -- is try to figure out the truth about men and men loving men.

And then communicate that truth to the world.

When I was a kid, I knew I was "gay" in the sense of being attracted to other boys, but I also knew I was masculine.

And I knew I wasn't supposed to be both.

That was a terrible conundrum for me.

Why, in gay life, do we never hear about that?

The focus is always on the poor oppressed effeminate.

Who are giving concerts to rave reviews at Carnegie Hall.

Fact is, within the gay male community, and increasingly outside of it, it's masculine men who are oppressed.

Why is that never addressed?

Why is the oppression of Frot men never addressed?

Why?

What happened to "honor diversity?"

The short answer is "Nothing, because it was never more than an empty slogan."

Remember what my foreign correspondent said:

The heterosexual society cares only for women. It sees men only as a problematic group that comes in the way of what is called women's rights.

Gay men are one of the most ardent supporters of heterosexualisation. They represent the dust bin created by the heterosexualised society to contain the mutilated / negativised remnants of male-male sex that survives after the intense oppression of them in the mainstream...

Gay men (when I say gay men I mean feminine identified males who like men) derive immense power from the heterosexual society. In fact they owe the heterosexual society their existence.

Again, my correspondent's analysis makes sense to me.

Women and feminine-identified gay males form a natural alliance -- whose purpose is to contain and indeed injure masculine-identified men and their masculinity.

Boomer, you also said,

When arguing the issue of effeminacy to gay men, it must also be mentioned that the concept of masculinity is flawed in the straight world as well as the gay world.

In both gay and straight culture, masculinity is under incessant attack by feminism, analism, and effeminists.

Sure, we can talk about the difference between macho and masculine, or "cultural masculinity" and "natural masculinity," but, as I just described in my post "The Power of the Masculine," in the gay male community there's a unique alliance of analism and gender feminism which has no use for men whatsoever and which seeks to destroy masculinity entirely.

How do you come to terms with an enemy whose only goal is to destroy you?

It's like the religious right.

They don't care whether it's Frot or anal.

To them it's all sin.

The effeminists don't care whether it's straight masculinity or gay masculinity.

It's all masculinity and it's all bad.

And if you're a masculine-identified man, Boomer, these people are NOT on your side.

If that isn’t mentioned then there is a big risk of alienating a small but crucial sector of our audience among men. An audience that has control of many gay publications, AIDS organisations, community centers, non-profit organizations and huge amounts of capital and resources at their disposal.

Okay -- let's talk about that "small but crucial sector."

First of all, we've had six years of experience dealing with that "crucial sector."

Here's what happens:

We say, "There's a safer and more pleasurable way for men to have sex with men than anal."

They say, "You're homophobic, you should be put in jail."

We say, "Anal is the highest risk sex act two men can perform."

They say, "You're homophobic, you should be put in jail."

We say, "There's always fecal material present during anal."

They say, "You're homophobic, you should be put in jail."

I could go on and on and on -- couldn't I?

And you certainly know the list.

So what makes you think that "nuancing" our stance on masculinity, would change anything?

It would not.

They'd still say, "You're homophobic, you should be put in jail."

Boomer, did you look at the links on Gavin's post titled "Situation in Scotland?"

They included the obit of a gay male community leader who was into shit and piss and was accused of raping a 15 year old boy; the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of men who dress mockingly as nuns, thus alienating Roman Catholics and other people of Faith, and who hand out condoms; and comic books extolling anal, effeminacy, promiscuity, and condoms.

With nary a word, by the way, of what the true risks of condom use are.

Those comic books are produced by Healthy Gay Scotland, a government-funded entity which has, as you say, "huge amounts of capital and resources at their disposal."

Which they are using to propagandize for anal, promiscuity, and effeminacy.

Do you think that people with that particular mindset would care if we nuanced our approach to masculinity?

Boomer, they would not.

All we would achieve is to undercut the efforts of our own masculine-identified men who are struggling to maintain that identification while immersed in a sea of analist and effeminist hate for the masculine.

Years ago, a guy named Gene, who's a mover and shaker in his corner of the gay male community, said to me that these organizations you've enumerated -- the publications, the ASOs, the NGOs, the community centers, etc -- are all run by men into anal.

What he said specifically, was that "the bottoms control the community."

Gene's right about that, though I'm willing to allow that there's an occasional top in there as well.

But softening our stance on masculinity is going to be about as effective with those feminized males as Chamberlain was with Hitler at Munich.

Appeasement doesn't work.

Let's talk about Gene for a moment.

Gene is the author of these words which appear in our definition of anal penetration:

There's no male connection, no bond, just raw lust. It's not sex or love, it's violence and power. The problem is implied in the politically-coerced masculine/feminine roles.

Gene is telling the truth.

If he's telling the truth, and if he believes strongly in what he's saying, as he clearly does, why doesn't he use his last name?

Because that "audience that has control of many gay publications, AIDS organisations, community centers, non-profit organizations and huge amounts of capital and resources at their disposal," which is an accurate description of them, would tear Gene to pieces, the way they've tried to tear me to pieces, and destroy his ability to do the little bit of good he does in his little corner of the gay male community.

So he posts anonymously on this site about the evils of anal -- and that's all he does.

Because he knows that the femmys have the power to destroy him.

That just doesn't sound like an oppressed group to me.

Let's talk about the Black community for a moment, and this "audience that has control of many gay publications, AIDS organisations, community centers, non-profit organizations and huge amounts of capital and resources at their disposal."

Years ago, Chuck Tarver, who's African-American, asked me to stay out of the Black community.

He said to me that a white activist talking about sex between Black men would inflame the community, and he suggested that he be the person to go to the Black gay community about Frot and HIV.

And I said fine.

So Bill Weintraub, everyone's favorite whipping boy, is out of this picture.

Also, since we're talking about effeminacy, I should point out that Chuck doesn't address that issue.

He never brings it up.

Chuck has a formuation of ABC which he puts forward -- Avoid anal, Be faithful, use a Condom if you won't do the first two -- and he makes no mention of effeminacy or masculinity issues.

What is the condition of this Black gay male community which Chuck Tarver seeks to ameliorate?

HIV prevalence among Black gay men is, according to the last survey I saw, at 46%.

That's higher than any community or any other discrete group that I know of on the entire planet.

That's higher than ANY country in Africa.

It's higher than among prostitutes in Thailand.

It's huge.

And it's deadly.

Black American gay men are far more likely to die of AIDS than white American gay men.

Given those facts, what has been the response of this "audience that has control of many gay publications, AIDS organisations, community centers, non-profit organizations and huge amounts of capital and resources at their disposal" to Chuck Tarver, who's an exceptionally intelligent, caring, dignified, and decent person?

And who doesn't mention effeminacy?

And who's African-American?

They won't talk to him.

For example, Phill Wilson, head of the Black AIDS Institute, won't talk to him.

That's the Institute which is charged with reducing HIV prevalence among Black gay men.

The head of the Black AIDS Institute, which is charged with reducing HIV prevalence among Black men, won't talk to Chuck Tarver, a Black man, indeed a Black professional, who has a PROVEN plan to reduce HIV infection.

Then there's a prominent Black gay columnist named Keith Boykin.

Chuck has approached Keith.

Has Keith Boykin ever done a column on Frot?

If he has I don't know about it.

Do you understand?

Those people don't care about stopping HIV and the other anally-vectored diseases.

What they care about is protecting anal, promiscuity, and effeminacy.

And their careers.

And being nice to them is not going to make one whit of difference.

Once again, if we're going to talk about scapegoating -- nothing quite scapegoats a Black gay man like giving him HIV.

Yet somehow we're always the villains of this piece.

I don't think so.

If masculine-identified gay men cannot wrest control of the gay community from these murderous analist femmy fools -- which we clearly cannot -- then we need to build our own space with other masculine-identified men, who are our natural allies.

Boomer, you also said:

:Jazz men, rock and roll men, singers, poets, artists, comedians, rocket scientists, geeks, jocks, coaches, police, firefighters, teachers, students, gargbage men, truck drivers, researchers, archeaologist, the list can go on forever. All those roles serve a purpose and must be filled by someone.

But there are roles which do not serve a purpose.

Other than a destructive one.

Such as tops and bottoms.

Every time a top penetrates a bottom, he destroys the delicate tissues of the anus and rectum.

Does effeminacy facilitate that penetration?

Yes.

Should we encourage that?

No.

Should we support it?

No.

Your description of the cultural process which may result in effeminacy is fine.

But you left out anal penetration.

And promiscuity.

These are very damaging elements in the lives of these men.

We define ourselves as a coalition of gay, bi, and straight-identified men who practice Frot;

who reject anal penetration, promiscuity, and effeminacy among men who have sex with men; and

who put forth the truth that one man can love another without any surrender of either's masculinity.

We don't have the power, nor do we seek the power, to ban anal, promiscuity, and effeminacy.

But we reject them because they are clearly destructive in the lives of men who love men.

Like you said:

Effeminancy is constructed and unnatural, and is not a part of the human condition whatsoever. The mockery of the feminine and the destroying of the masculine is not built into any human being. It is a reaction of fear, shame, anger, confusion the lies of gay identity and lies of general society.

To which I would add, it's also the result of acculturation into a society and subculture which teaches that effeminacy is a social good.

And Masculinity a social ill.

All sorts of things happen to us as we're growing up.

But it also matters what sort of society we grow up into.

We offer a clear alternative to what's out there.

In so doing, WE DEFEND THE MASCULINITY OF MEN WHO LOVE MEN and thus it make it possible for MORE MASCULINE-IDENTIFIED MEN to LOVE MEN.

To break out of that heterosexualized space, and to realize their full potential as MEN.

Those MASCULINE MEN are our constituency, they have been from the beginning, and they will continue to be.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Boomer

Re: A Box That Fits

7-17-2006

Thanks for the thorough response Bill.

This commentary has been buidling up in my head for a while now. I was reluctact to post it at first but I think some of those ideas needed to be presented, even though it came off sort of like a ranting.

“I do not want men in the movement to be caught into the overdone trap of using guys with feminine mannerisms as scapegoats."

When I made that comment I was speaking in terms of the future tense and not so much an accusation of anyone in the present tense. I was more so reacting to the way I see people in everyday life treating these men and wasn’t targeting any men on this website. I believe you and all the other guys who post have been pretty dead on accurate in your stance on effeminacy. Effeminacy and Anal have been th single most damaging aspects to men who love men.

The reason I posted that message in it’s entirety was to attempt to give a better cultural understanding of why effeminate men act the way they do.

You mentioned

“When I was a kid, I knew I was "gay" in the sense of being attracted to other boys, but I also knew I was masculine.”

Same here, and that was my biggest problem also. I knew I was attracted to men but I didn’t fit the script. Some times I even envied those effeminate men as they can do what they do and have no conflict in it. Me being masculine, I had conflict in doing the same things. Keep in mind, even though I envied them in this manner, it never meant I wanted to switch places with them in any way.

The “I don’t fit” idea kept me from a lot of potential encounters with other guys. And me being percieved as masculine by the outside world, laced me with high expectations to perform with the opposite sex any time I had the chance to. Just as you talk about in the post Power of the Masculine.

Most of the time I could care less about pussy, or sex period. I had others things on my mind.

I’m attracted to girls, but it’s a much lesser attraction, than what I have for guys.

I could stare all day at a cute girl with a nice body, but if I so much as smelled another guy walk by it would grab my attention and I would turn my head.

I didn’t get a good look at those links in gavin’s post, the first time they disguted me so quickly I didn’t read all that much of it. I started reading them again after you provided the links and did the same thing, closed the browser window. I feel like the gray matter of my brain is being smeared with feces when I look at shit like that.

I’m really disappointed about Keith Boykin being unresonsive to Chuck Tarver.

Keith Boykin is probably one of the most powerful and prominent gay men out there.

This last week Keith had discussion with an AIDS organization who was running a concert that featured too homophbic artist out of Jamaica. The concert was to raise money and raise awareness about AIDS among the black community. Keith took issue to the two particular artist at the concert and contacted the board of LIFEbeat(the organization responsible for the concert). He got a cold reply back, saying that the concert will go on as planned. HE posted the response on his website and enlisted the help of a number of prominent gay black bloggers online to spread information and contacted many outside activists. Within 48 hours the concert was canceled and a third day latter LIFEbeat issued an apology about the incident, apologizing for any harm that it may have caused.

That how much power this one guy has. If he even did a slight mention about this website or about the information provided to him by Chuck(if any real information got the chance to be provided at all), it would spark a lot of discussion and controversy. But, It will probably also lose him a lot of support/connections. He is probably as you’ve said protecting his career by being slent, or he may have dismissed the information on contact with it.

You convinced me of one thing though, that the two movements of Frot men verses gay men are are probably not mixable and probably never will be.

The way I was thinking was that for this movement to grab some strong ground, we must infiltrate the dominate culture of analism (mainstream gay culture) and changed it from the inside out. But I think I was wrong on this. As you said that, what Frot men advocate, and what analism carries out, are such complete polar opposites.

So, starkly different that is is probably impossible for them to exist in the same place and time without causing a rip in the fabric of the universe, or better yet, a destruction of one of the two in said place and time.

I’m guessing the only solution is for this movement to grow on it’s own, independent of the gay community, side by side but not together

Once enough momentum is gained them men will naturally gravitate toward where the grass is greener. Guys will drain out of the gay community and realize their full potential as frot men, as will young men growing up realizing their full potential sexually.

With that in my perspective It’s seems only a matter of time and method before this comes to pass.

Bill Weintraub

Re: A Box That Fits

7-17-2006

Hey Boomer

You said:

I didn’t get a good look at those links in gavin’s post, the first time they disguted me so quickly I didn’t read all that much of it. I started reading them again after you provided the links and did the same thing, closed the browser window. I feel like the gray matter of my brain is being smeared with feces when I look at shit like that.

I’m really disappointed about Keith Boykin being unresponsive to Chuck Tarver.

Keith Boykin is probably one of the most powerful and prominent gay men out there.

Right.

Do you think Keith gets disgusted when he sees those links?

Do you think he feels like his brain's been smeared with shit?

No.

That's the problem.

Let's take the bit about the community leader, for example, who was into piss and shit.

To the analists, that falls under the rubric of "It's all sex and it's all good."

That's what they believe.

Most probably wouldn't support the rape of the 15-year-old boy, although:

The guy who wrote the memoir said that he thought the alleged rape was more a case of "mixed signals" than anything else.

Mixed signals huh?

Let's play that one out.

Boy: "Please sir, I don't want to get fucked."

Ian: "You're not really gay if you don't get fucked!"

Boy: "Please sir, that hurts."

Ian: "Get used to it! You're a homo!"

Boy: "Please sir, I don't want to do it again."

Ian: "Get on your knees bitch and have some fun!"

Please note that all the lines I've ascribed to Ian are things which have actually been said to me personally or reported in the press or online.

How bout the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?

Most gay men think they're amusing, and appropriate given the Church's opposition to homosexuality.

How bout the comic books?

They extoll condoms and lubes -- in one panel there's actually a Christmas Tree decorated solely with condoms and packets of lube; and they extend a warm welcome to the effeminate.

Condoms are the official solution to all things HIV, and the community of course "Honors Diversity."

Does Keith know about Chuck, yes, does he know about me, probably, does he know about groups like "blacks against anal penetration" -- almost certainly.

He won't talk about those men.

I’m guessing the only solution is for this movement to grow on it’s own, independent of the gay community, side by side but not together

Once enough momentum is gained them men will naturally gravitate toward where the grass is greener. Guys will drain out of the gay community and realize their full potential as frot men, as will young men growing up realizing their full potential sexually.

With that in my perspective It’s seems only a matter of time and method before this comes to pass.

Right.

I think it's useful to think in terms of Natan Sharansky's three groups, which I've discussed in other posts:

1. True believers.

These are the analists like Phill Wilson.

Wilson figured briefly in this article in the SF Chronicle.

In the article, it says Wilson has lived with HIV for 25 years and AIDS for 15.

You have to wonder how he knows it's been 25 years, since there was no HIV test in 81.

But giving him the benefit of the doubt, he's a typical man into anal who has HIV and thinks he's qualified to tell other men how to avoid the virus.

Or something.

Wilson knows Chuck, Wilson has dismissed Chuck.

2. Dissidents.

That's us.

We're dissident from two cultures:

analism

heterosexism

The first thing we need to do is reach our fellow dissidents.

That means advertising.

Yesterday I got yet another of those "I stumbled on your site, I'm so grateful" letters.

I appeciate the gratitude, but those guys need to find the site through advertising.

Not stumbling.

3. Doublethinkers.

These are guys who endorse the analist line and/or the heterosexist line, but have their doubts.

Keith Boykin may be one of them.

Or he may not.

Doublethinkers do NOT become dissidents until the COST OF DISSENT is lowered.

That's why I mentioned Gene.

Before Gene will use his last name, the cost of dissent has to be acceptable to him.

So, when a person like Gene, or perhaps Keith, feels that he can talk about Frot v anal without being destroyed -- he'll do it.

Not before.

Here's the key:

The more dissidents, the lower the price of dissent.

That's why IT IS ESSENTIAL that we gather in our fellow Frot men.

We need their numbers.

And we need to be clear that our natural constiuency is our fellow Masculine-identified MEN.

Remember what Gene said and what my foreign correspondent said:

Feminized males / feminine-identified gay men do well under an analist / heterosexualized system.

If the system benefits them, they're unlikely to abandon it.

Boomer:

"When I was a kid, I knew I was "gay" in the sense of being attracted to other boys, but I also knew I was masculine."

Same here, and that was my biggest problem also. I knew I was attracted to men but I didn’t fit the script. Some times I even envied those effeminate men as they can do what they do and have no conflict in it. Me being masculine, I had conflict in doing the same things. Keep in mind, even though I envied them in this manner, it never meant I wanted to switch places with them in any way.

The "I don’t fit" idea kept me from a lot of potential encounters with other guys. And me being percieved as masculine by the outside world, laced me with high expectations to perform with the opposite sex any time I had the chance to. Just as you talk about in the post Power of the Masculine.

Right.

The guys who are most oppressed in the present set-up are the Masculine-identified.

Because they're pressed to say Yes to girls when they want to say No; and No to guys when they want to say Yes.

They need the reality of their situation brought home to them and explained to them.

And again, as one of our true Warriors said:

"Right now m2m is the other to both the straight and gay cultures. Masculine men, however, can defeat effeminacy. Getting men to remember and to reconnect with the value of the warrior will be their salvation."

The Way of the Warrior is the Way of Salvation.

Thank you Boomer.

Boomer is a true Warrior.

Are you?

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Robert Loring

Re: A Box That Fits

7-19-2006

All males are our BROTHERS no matter what their roles are in our society. No matter what their skin color, faith, or anything else. The Brotherhood of Man does NOT recognize the things that separate men. Rather, it recognizes those things which UNITE us in COMMON BONDS as MALES. Masculine males are our brothers. Effeminized males ARE our BROTHERS too!

I thoroughly believe in this natural bonding and brotherhood of man. I completely believe that ALL men, masculine, feminine, or otherwise are BROTHERS! I do NOT advocate the rejection of feminized males. Rather, I advocate the acceptance of them as our brothers and I advocate that we who are masculine males HELP our feminized BROTHERS to REGAIN their own natural masculinity. And, that we help them strip away the lies and illusions they have been so forcibly fed by society and sub-cultures. Masculine, feminized, and everything in between males MUST be accepted, not rejected or ostracized. To ostracize ANY of our male brethren would be a mistake in my opinion. The way to help the lost is NOT to shun them. The way to help the lost and defeated in our society is to help them overcome their defeat and teach them how to be masculine men and warriors. Afterall, they will never be masculine men or warriors unless a warrior teaches them how to be so.

As for feminized males having built up and internalized anger....I'm NOT surprised at all by this concept/truth. A lot of males today ARE angry! Attack against males comes from every front. Defeat for many males is just around the corner or already on their doorsteps. Anger is a natural reaction of any human being in such a situation.

EVERY human being, male or female, IS deserving of some basic respect and love. A movement that truly has the best interest of the human race at heart gives ALL people basic respect and love.

Robert

PS---The discussions on this forum are absolutely amazing! This is one of the FEW forums on the Net that actually have some INTELLIGENT people posting. Bless all of you and

KEEP IT UP WARRIORS!!

Sir Robert

Re: A Box That Fits

7-20-2006

I've been thinking much about Boomer's post and how it rings so true. I think all males today are frustrated and angry even if that anger is repressed. In the gay world males are forced to live the LIE of feminization. In the straight world men are forced to live the LIE of machoism. No matter what world it is there is a LIE to be lived and so we all, men and women both, end up living out our lives in a LIE.

Machoism is a lie forced upon us. It is a mask men wear in a futile effort to hide their own sense of insecurity and uncertainty. It is an attempted cover-up on one's own fear. Fear of one's own self and true feelings. Machoism alienates a male from other males. What bonds are established with other males are often weak and easily broken because they are based on the societal lie of machoism. The macho male is often full of rage even if that rage is hiding just below the surface. The rage comes NOT from a male's innate aggression but from having to live the social lie. And so, the frustration, the anger, the rage brew and boil until one day it all explodes and the male is condemned for his aggression yet it is the societal lie that is the real problem.

Macho-men deny their feelings and often reject them out of hand. Afterall, "real" men are not suppose to love or have feelings for other men (or so the social lie teaches). "Real" men, goes the societal lie, must be Supermen. They must be mentally hard and have no need for such things as love, compassion, and tenderness. The lie teaches them that they must go through life alone never relying on other men, never needing companionship and brotherhood with other men, and certainly never thinking of having sex with other men. But, the feelings persist and as they persist and are continuously rejected and repressed the anger grows into boiling rage. Males are, thus, taught by the social lie of machoism to reject themselves and their NATURAL MANHOOD, masculinity. What is born is a man who is frustrated, lonely, angry, and eventually becomes a man of rage. It's really no wonder that we have so many ANGRY males in society today!

We are being forced to live the unnatural. We are being forced to live society's lies. We are being misled into believing that what society dictates is truth and normalcy while at the same time we are being forced to reject our gutt feelings and thoughts. Right has been turned into wrong and wrong has been turned into right. The natural has been supplanted with the unnatural and the result has been that society has been turned upside down. It will never be turned right side up until man returns to honoring and living the natural that is at the very core of his being.

I look at the faces of males of all ages today. In the young I see the growing frustration and anger. In the older I see the rage, the bitterness, the hatred of self and of society for having been forced to live the lie of machoism and/or feminism. The human face is like a book. Look at it and you will come to be able to read it. Once you begin to read it you will clearly see that the human face tells all.

Gay men are angry. Straight men are angry. Bisexual men are angry. Men are ANGRY period! Males of all ages and colors are frustrated and angry and growing numbers are giving into rage. Rage and anger against the societal lies of machoism and feminism that often translates into self hatred and self rejection.

What sad times we live in today! What LOST times we live in today! Times in which a MALE is NOT allowed to simply be NATURAL male!

Greg Milliken

Re: A Box That Fits

7-21-2006

I never understood the point of using a rainbow to represent diversity.

After all, in a rainbow all the colors of the spectrum are divided into their respective components.

Which means that some colors toward the lower end of the spectrum, such as red and orange, have less energy than those at the higher end of the spectrum, like blue and violet.

Less energy translates into less ability in the real world.

So by using the rainbow we are saying we are all part of the same thing, but some people are just more capable than others.

I don't buy it.

I think we all start out with the same potential.

Kind of like white light.

See, white light is composed of EVERY color in the spectrum. That's why when you shine it through a prism you can see all of the colors.

So if we think of everyone as starting as the same white light, they can choose which part of the spectrum to emphasize.

And when we see a spectrum, it's because some have chosen to contribute less while others have chosen to contribute more.

Some have chosen the lower energy colors, while others have chosen higher energy colors.

That's part of the reason purple (deep purple, not that ugly lavendar shit) is my favorite color.

I used to jump all over the spectrum choosing another favorite color because it was an arbitrary selection of what reflected my current mood and societal values of what a masculine male SHOULD like.

But I doubt anyone ever put much thought into why they chose one color over another.

It wasn't until I really thought about it that I came up with a choice that I could stick with. And I've stuck with it for years, knowing that there is nothing feminine about it.

I'm not saying a masculine man has to like purple -- we all have our own reasons for why certain shades are our favorites.

But that's why *I* chose what I did, and why I like it.

Anyway, I like what boomer said about feminine mannerisms.

In that, if someone is soft spoken or has a certain job it shouldn't be the sole arbiter of whether he is masculine.

What we reject about effeminacy are the important things for a man to have.

Things like a willingness to fight for your own and your family's well being, a natural aggressiveness in your personal interactions, and a respect for the opposite sex.

Things which effeminate men go out of their way to avoid.

After all, an effeminate man mocks women by calling his friends "gurl" and "bitch" and referring to his anus as a "boi pussy."

An effeminate man will be meek and nonconfrontational in a conversation: aka boring. If you try to be aggressive he will get offended and likely have his feelings hurt.

And an effeminate man will go out of his way to protest any use of violence, even in the case of self-defence.

These are very unhealthy "qualities" of effeminate men that get in the way of longevity, happiness, and even the very ability to bond closely with other men.

Which is why effeminacy contributes to promiscuity -- no bond means no "repeat customers" when it comes to sex.

And it contributes to anal -- seeing your anus as a "boi pussy" leads you to believe it should be penetrated.

I'm short on time, and I think I got out everything I wanted to say, so I hope that explanation helped.

Greg Milliken gmillike@gmail.com

Bill Weintraub

Re: A Box That Fits

7-21-2006

Thank you Boomer and Robert and Greg.

Guys --

It's fine to point out that "machoism" is not the same as "natural masculinity."

But what concerns me as I look at the heterosexualized West -- that is the US, Canada, the UK, the EU, Australia, and New Zealand -- which is where the vast majority of our guys live -- what concerns me is feminism and the effeminists.

Because those people now dominate the academy -- the colleges and universities; the media; the think tanks and other NGOs; and the churches -- the FBOs.

Which means they have a tremendous influence on public policy and private behavior.

Whereas machoism is now on the cultural fringe.

Yes, "thug culture" is a problem among certain age groups -- primarily in the inner cities.

And there's no question that not only is it obnoxious, it's a danger to those young people caught up in it.

But it's MARGINAL.

And that's all it is.

Not true of feminism and effeminization.

For example, we have a government program known as Title IX which mandates gender equity in the schools.

That's done tremendous damage to male collegiate wrestling.

Huge damage.

This is from an article in USA TODAY:

Title IX has been controversial at some schools where teams in less prominent men's sports, like wrestling, have been eliminated to keep the numbers of men and women participating in athletics proportional to their enrollment numbers.

Once those programs are gone, they don't come back.

I'm also greatly concerned about the reach of the analists and effeminists into the lives of bi men.

Den Shanahan -- middle-aged married guy, goes to see Brokeback, gets all stirred up with adolescent memories of Frot with a bud, goes online to seek out BI sites, and the first thing he's hit with is -- ARE YOU A TOP OR A BOTTOM?

That's the problem.

Not machoism, which is just one form of a culturally-constructed version of masculinity.

But men who may want to come out to other men and whose only choice is coming out into an analist culture.

This is from a post titled honor and integrity:

I was never comfortable with the gay guys that I know... I mean like I wasn;t like them. But at the same time I know that Im not like my boys here in the city. ANd I cant figure out why I feel more comfortable with my straight buddies than with other people especially that they are all street dudes... I don't think I know anyone who doesnt have at least one felony charge... I mean here I am a middle class white dude with a college education hangin out with city street dudes.... but I told my wife that I always found more honesty and integrity and honor among my buddies that I did with my middle class neighbors. I mean me and my buddies all watch eeach others backs and they would firggin take a lot of physical abuse to protect me and I would do the same for them... I mean I have and they have in certain circumstances.

But then the past year I been thinkin that I really am gay and that I have just been lieing to them and to myself and the real reason that I like hangin out is not because of honor and integrity but because it is a "safe" excuse for male-to-male contact and an avoidence of the reality that I am gay. But your site has brought a new perspective for me. I mean I don;t identify with the feminism in the gay culture... and I like the fact that I am big and muscular and I like being a friggin masculine man. And I like hanging wit my buddies and dont have to have sex with them although at times it would be cool.... but I know they are not there and the point is that they are honorable and true-blue and thats more important to me than anything else.

This guy -- his name is JM -- is he "macho?"

Are his "true-blue" buddies macho?

For many guys, at this point I would think, machoism is a refuge from feminism and forced heterosexualisation.

What about "honor?"

The concept of honor is an important part of male-bonding.

Yet I told my foreign friend that the concept of honor is virtually dead among middle-class and upper middle-class men.

It's more likely to be found among marginalized working class guys -- the sort of guys described in that post.

Is that bad?

Fact is, that very often the guys who come to us are macho to some degree.

They're guys who are lookin for a way to relate to their buds without being effeminized.

And if I'm going to err on one side or the other -- it'll be in favor of those guys -- working class, lower middle class guys who are lookin to be "true-blue" and behave honorably towards their friends.

Because for one thing, what I see going on with middle class guys in the men's movement is an intensely politically correct stance which brooks no criticism of feminism or gay culture -- analism.

I hear that from the straight-identified guys a lot.

That the one place they can actually be critical of the women's movement -- is here.

I've also talked, in a recent post, about the importance of all-male spaces.

How in one working-class town there's a fight school which is all male.

So that the guys get to grapple shirtless, and just be guys.

We need that.

I have a friend who's going to try to put something like that together in his town.

It'll be a wrestling club.

It won't be gay and it won't be straight, it'll just be guy.

That's what we need.

My friend says, and I agree with him, that guys can work it out if you let them be guys.

GUYS CAN WORK IT OUT -- IF YOU LET THEM BE GUYS.

I also have to look at how obdurate the analists, feminists, and effeminists have been on the issue of Frot, anal, and disease.

And I refer again to Chuck Tarver's experience.

Because Chuck isn't me.

And going, as a Black gay man, to the Black gay male community -- he was just as poorly treated and just as effectively dismissed as I've been.

While infection rates keep rising.

And in his community, guys keep dying.

That's serious and it's not something that I at least can put behind me.

Robert:

Macho-men deny their feelings and often reject them out of hand. Afterall, "real" men are not suppose to love or have feelings for other men (or so the social lie teaches). "Real" men, goes the societal lie, must be Supermen. They must be mentally hard and have no need for such things as love, compassion, and tenderness. The lie teaches them that they must go through life alone never relying on other men, never needing companionship and brotherhood with other men, and certainly never thinking of having sex with other men. But, the feelings persist and as they persist and are continuously rejected and repressed the anger grows into boiling rage. Males are, thus, taught by the social lie of machoism to reject themselves and their NATURAL MANHOOD, masculinity.

Robert I agree with you.

But I also think there's a fine line between macho and masculine.

And we don't want to throw out the masculine baby with the macho bathwater.

Because the forces opposed to macho are also opposed to masculine.

The only sort of male they'll tolerate is a feminized male.

And as I've asked before -- how are we supposed to deal with people whose only goal is to destroy us?

I am determined that there will be a place first on the web and then in the real world for MASCULINE MEN who LOVE other MASCULINE MEN.

Some of those men may identify as "macho."

I don't want to chase them away.

What about brotherhood?

I agree with Robert and Boomer that all men are our brothers -- and all women our sisters for that matter.

Which is what religion teaches us.

And which is no doubt true.

But we're not a religious organization.

We're an advocacy organization.

And that means we take positions, positions which may offend those who disagree.

That's just the price we pay when we take a position.

The alternative of course is to take no position at all, in which case we won't offend, but we won't accomplish anything either.

We have three core positions:

Frot not anal.

Fidelity not promiscuity.

Masculinity not effeminacy.

Should we relax our position on Frot not anal?

If we did, the Alliance would swiftly fill with guys into anal, pictures of anal, and exhortations to do anal.

Yes, some of those men into anal might do Frot too -- usually as foreplay -- but de facto we'd no longer be a Frot organization.

We'd be an "It's all sex and it's all good" organization; and there'd be no difference between us and the rest of the gay community.

And in point of fact there are frottage sites like that.

Similarly, we could relax our stance on Fidelity.

In which case Frot Club would fill with posts inviting promiscuity and group sex -- which would include anal and barebacking.

At which point there'd be no difference between Frot Club and any other gay hook-up site.

Including racism.

The men who are most likely to make racist posts in Frot Club -- and I just got one in -- are guys into anal who are also promiscuous.

What about our stance on Masculinity?

It's my position that sex is determined by biology.

And that there are just two sexes: male and female.

And that ordinarily, and by nature, Men are masculine; Women feminine.

Why then do some men display the behaviors we term "effeminacy?"

Because of culture.

Their culture teaches them that because they are attracted to other men, they are in some form women, and should behave accordingly.

So -- it's my position that culture can cause biological males, in violation of their own natural masculinity, to behave effeminately.

That, so far as I can tell, is Robert's position as well.

I advocate that we who are masculine males HELP our feminized BROTHERS to REGAIN their own natural masculinity. And, that we help them strip away the lies and illusions they have been so forcibly fed by society and sub-cultures.

Right.

Lies and illusions.

If Robert's correct that the people we sometimes refer to as "feminized males" have been made effeminate by "the lies and illusions they have been so forcibly fed by society and sub-cultures";

then Robert is also correct that, provided they still have what he once called a "mustard seed of Masculinity" within them, they can be reclaimed for and restored to their NATURAL masculinity.

Which, as I've said, they must do if they are to thrive.

But there does exist a different point of view.

I've referred often in the past week to someone I'm calling my "foreign correspondent."

This is a person, very bright and very thoughtful, who lives in a non-Western society in which many traditional elements are still in place.

He maintains that effeminacy is not cultural, but biological.

And that, and looking just at men for the moment, there are two biologically-determined types of men -- and these are his terms:

"Feminine-gendered men"; and

"Masculine-gendered men."

Feminine-gendered men, he says, may be homosexual or heterosexual.

Those who are homosexual, he says, occupy their own niche in his culture, a niche which somewhat resembles "gay."

Masculine-gendered men, by contrast, he argues, are never "gay," though virtually all are what we would call bisexual -- in varying degree.

These men, he says, seek out other Masculine-gendered men for sex, and they rarely if ever do anal.

He does not consider Masculine-gendered men to EVER fall into the category of homosexual, even if most of their sexual desire is aimed towards other men.

They're just Men.

Masculine Men.

To him as to us, it's natural and normal for Masculine Men to relate sexually to other Masculine Men.

But he also believes there exist these "feminine men" who are effeminate because of biology.

Some of whom are heterosexual and some of whom are homosexual -- and anally receptive.

Is he correct that what he calls "feminine-gendered men" exist as a function of biology?

I don't think so.

But I'm not part of his culture and I'm not sure what exactly it is that he's seeing.

What I've told him, is that in my own culture, I've never seen a truly effeminate heterosexual man.

Some straight-identified men can be, as I've discussed, timid or passive; but I've never seen them possess the full attributes of effeminacy.

I've also asked him what percentage of men, in his view, are feminine-gendered?

Unfortunately, and for whatever reason, he hasn't answered my question.

But it's an important one. Is

this a rare phenomenon?

Is it 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 5%?

If it's at 2 to 5%, then we're essentially in a Dan Savage-style argument, in which gay men constitute a very small, genetically discrete, and entirely separate group within society.

And anal is natural to them.

Because, having a feminine or mixed-gender identity, they seek to be penetrated.

I repeat that I don't think my foreign friend is correct.

I think that like Robert, Boomer's correct in describing how cultural forces work to bring about effeminate behavior.

And I think that I'm correct that effeminacy is what I call a "cultural overlay": a set of behaviors assumed by men as they enter, either psychologically, or physically, or both, into analist culture, and which "overlay" their core, Masculine, biologically-determined identity.

I think that's what's going on in my friend's culture as well.

But there are some differences.

For one thing, his culture has a long history of castrating males.

That's not true of the West.

On the whole, and until very recently, the West has regarded castration with horror.

In any case, on the surface, my foreign friend's formulation seems to neatly solve certain problems.

If we adopted it, we could say to the femmys, you're one group of men and we're another.

But that would NOT be the end of it.

Because within OUR Western, heterosexualized culture, as my foreign friend has also said, these feminized males hold the power.

The heterosexual society cares only for women. It sees men only as a problematic group that comes in the way of what is called women's rights.

Gay men are one of the most ardent supporters of heterosexualisation. They represent the dust bin created by the heterosexualised society to contain the mutilated/ negativised remnants of male-male sex that survives after the intense oppression of them in the mainstream...

Gay men (when I say gay men I mean feminine gendered males who like men) derive immense power from the heterosexual society. In fact they owe the heterosexual society their existence.

In this case, I agree with my foreign friend's analysis.

Masculine Men, as my friend said, are seen as "problematic" -- that is, aggressive, violent, oppressive, etc.

Their masculinity is the problem, and their masculinity needs to be undermined if not totally destroyed.

Women and feminine-identified gay males form a natural alliance -- whose purpose is to contain and indeed injure masculine-identified men and their masculinity.

That's what they're after.

And if we give these feminized males even more legitimacy by agreeing that they are feminine "by nature" -- they will use that as a club to beat us with.

Because they will say, as they already do, that ALL men are by nature part masculine and part feminine, and that it's desireable for men to get in touch with their inner woman, not least through anal penetration.

That's what they will do.

And they will be vicious about it.

Because that's what they're like.

I've said that the issue of effeminacy has been drawing a lot of hate mail.

That mail is far more vituperative and nasty than the mail I used to receive about anal.

But that fits with my experience of effeminate males, which goes all the way back to when I first came out.

These males are not "gentle."

They're -- not all the time, but often -- mean and vicious.

In this latest batch of hate, they've attacked in particular both Robert Loring and Rm.

Why?

Because both Robert and Rm defend masculinity.

And for doing so, and speaking simply and eloquently from their hearts, they've been savaged by these people.

Now, I don't post those emails -- perhaps I should, but I see no sense in that.

Because they're incredibly mean and mean in spirit.

Which neither Robert nor Rm are.

But that's the reality of these feminized males -- they're not, at least when in political mode, nice people.

So here's how this works:

Frot not anal.

If we relax our stance on Frot, the Alliance fills up with men into anal, who will proselytize for anal.

Fidelity not promiscuity,

If we relax our stance on Fidelity, the Alliance fills up with promiscuous men advocating group sex, etc.

Masculinity not effeminacy.

If we relax our stance on Masculinity, feminized males will use that to attack and undercut the efforts of masculine-identified men to remain masculine.

That's what they do.

Again, here's something my foreign friend said:

Gay men are one of the most ardent supporters of heterosexualisation. They represent the dust bin created by the heterosexualised society to contain the mutilated / negativised remnants of male-male sex that survives after the intense oppression of them in the mainstream...

"mutilated / negatisived"

And they seek to mutilate others.

That's the problem.

I put up a post yesterday titled life in the trash heap, about people -- specifically gay men -- spreading HIV.

It's gotten so bad that the legislatures and courts especially have begun to criminalize the behavior and expand the definition of liability.

Also in that post I described the planned opening of a new gay male bathhouse in Cleveland.

Despite the warnings of health officials that it will be used to spread disease.

This is not a healthy society.

This is not a society we should support.

So yes, all men are our brothers.

But when some of those men behave badly, I will continue to say so.

And when their reasons for behaving badly are false -- such as effeminacy is biological -- I will continue to say so also.

Because it needs to be said.

My lover was killed by a man who believed it didn't matter whether he spread disease.

And who no doubt also believed that he was of mixed gender and so entitled to behave a bit badly.

But he wasn't and wasn't.

He was a man.

And had he behaved more like a MAN in this life, maybe both he and Brett would still be alive.

Bill Weintraub

All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Robert Loring

7-22-2006

Re: A Box That Fits

Oh shit....more hate mail???

God! I think I'll grab my nutts and go hide in the closet somewhere LOLOLOL.

Hey BTW I've gotten some hate email of my own which I'll share with you all here.

One poor lost soul referred to me as "Mr. Hitler" and then went out of his way to declare me a neo-Nazi skinhead lol. Not quite sure how he made this connection but I guess it made sense to him lost in his own psychosis. I thanked him for the compliment but assured him my name was not "Mr. Hitler" and that my first name was also not "Adolph." LOL. And I also assured him that I do in fact have hair on my head so there's no way I could possibly be a skinhead. Poor angry soul that this emailer was. So lost and too fucking ignorant to even figure it out. And he still has not figured out Hitler is DEAD!

Another email of late came from a preacher on the religious Christian Right. After outright accusing me of being Satan incarnate and the Antichrist he offered to save my soul. No thanks I told him lol. Also let him know that I was not aware that humans could save souls. Guess I made a big mistake because I thought Christ could only do that. Hmmm...silly me!! He also let me know that "ALL men" who have "ANY kind of sex with other men" are "going to burn and rot in HELL!" Really? Jesus I thought we were all already rotting and burning in HELL because the way this FUCKED UP world looks right now it pretty much resembles HELL Mr. Preacher DUDE! Anyway it was a big relief for me to discover that this preacher is God's judge, jury, and executioner on earth. Now I'm thankful that I finally know which human self righteous egomaniac I must answer to lol. I thought God was the only judge but BINGO I guess I was wrong again..........

Another lovely little email came from a feminist who accused me of promoting "male aggression and the hatred of women." Really? I don't recall posting anywhere any hatred for women. Maybe she's reading the wrong forum?? Maybe she was drunk when she sent me her seething hate email. Maybe she just didn't get any last night. Who the fuck knows lol? She went on in her rage to tell me I need to start promoting the concept of males showing their "softer side" and that I need to advocate the "gentler male." She also let me know that it is masculinity that has caused the world so much "woe." Really? I thought it was human psychosis, hatred, and sociopathic behaviors. She went on to demoralize ALL men, gay or not, and let me know how we have ruined the world and the shame we should feel over that. I asked her if she would like for me to commit suicide now because I'm a male and obviously in her SICK little mind being male is WRONG. As yet she has not answered me BUT I'm sitting here with my loaded gun ready to blow my brains out once she dictates to me that I should put an end to it all because I'm and MALE and that is BADDDDDDDDD LMFAO!

Another psychotic emailed me letting me know that I am "NOT a CHRISTIAN!" Why? Because I advocate masculinity and M2M love and sex. This person also let me know that "IF" I was a "REAL Christian" (whatever the fuck that is) that I would not use words like "F---" in my posts. I thanked this person for judging me and also for condemning me afterall it's their "Christian" duty, NOT. I also ended my response with my favorite two words: FUCK YOU!! Maybe I went a bit overboard on this response BUT I just couldn't help myself. Oh someone help me PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMFAO..........

One of the BEST hate email I received lately was from some poor PIG who accused me of being part of the conspiracy for the New World Order. They began by letting me know that they knew I was a Freemason and, of course, we all know the Freemasons are behind the formation of the NWO right? NOT!! This person accused me of trying to pit people against each other and of disrupting the "freedom and democracy" of "these United States." They let me know that they knew all my posts on this site were lies and "smoke and mirrors designed to create hatred and dissension" to make it "easier for the New World Order to take control of power." Actually, this person's email started out sounding like he was fairly intelligent but when it was all over it was clear he was just another WACK-JOB. On behalf of the NWO I thanked him for his email. He boasted much about his own straight sexuality and, of course, he degraded me for my own sexuality and for being gay. I'm awaiting his answer to my question however. I asked him why he was looking at this site if he was such a "straight" male! To date there has been NO REPLY.....LMFAO....AGAIN!

These are just a few of the emails I've received of late and that are so overflowing with hatred and RAGE. I have a special FAT file I store these emails in and most of you know it as the GARBAGE CAN. I like to call it "The Wacko Files", you know, kinda like The X-Files.

Now, if none of you mind, I think I'll go shave my head and transform into Satan incarnate along with the Antichrist and legally change my name to Mr. Hitler. Oh, and can someone please tell me how to join the New World Order and the Freemasons??? I really do not want to disappoint any of my fans you know. I feel I must live up to THEIR expectations and SCREW my own!

LMFAO !!

(it means Laughing My FUCKING ASS Off....for all you who don't yet know Net-lingo)