2-17-2007

When I was a boy, it was widely believed that "homosexuality" was a behavior found only among humans.

And was therefore "unnatural."

A crime against nature.

While I understood, even as a boy, that such an argument was flawed -- for there are, after all, many things which humans do which animals do not -- the "fact" that homosexuality was not to be found in the non-human, natural world, was for me crushing.

For it was the nature of my conception of my same-sex feelings, that I linked them with the natural world.

The great world of the out-of-doors and of natural phenomena -- the seasons, the weather, the wind, the sky, the sun moon and stars, plant and animal life -- and the great wild places in which these were best experienced.

There it was that I felt most free and most alive.

And when I thought of my intense and all-encompassing desire for a Warrior brother, I thought of it and of us in terms of Nature.

To me, we were to be creatures of the Wild -- natural male beings -- not something made in a city or suburb or town.

But Men who openly and freely expressed one of the most fundamental yearnings of the race -- to fight and love another of their sex.

Thus the idea of The Comradeship of Wounds: red blood, red love.

Within myself, I knew my feelings to be Natural.

Yet from without I was constantly told that they were not.

From science there was no solace -- only disparagement and despair.

You're sick, was the message -- evil and diseased.

Just look about you -- no one feels as you do.

No animal either.

Bulls and boars, stallions and bucks, roosters and rams -- these never show a desire for their own sex.

A dog might, but what is a dog?

A domesticated and promiscuous creature, the result of human meddling.

In the great pure world of nature, I was constantly reminded, such desires as yours do not exist.

They are UNNATURAL.

And those who seek to express them in the human world express only a crime against nature.

These ideas -- of the essentially unnatural and uniquely human nature of same-sex desire -- had and continue to have, I believe, a profoundly damaging effect on the lives of Men who Love Men.

Such ideas inevitably linked "homosexuality" with the city -- the vast and decidely unnatural megalopoleis which were beginning to spread across the US and the EU.

It was in these cities, far removed from contact with nature and the natural world, that the gay subculture emerged.

The males of that culture, having constantly been told that they were "against nature," sought to act in that way.

They rejected Masculinity for effeminacy; Fidelity for promiscuity; and Phallus for anus.

Indeed, the urban environment and of course the technological progress which had made that environment possible on such a vast scale, greatly facilitated those behaviors and that self-perception.

"Homosexuals" were seen as creatures of the city -- and of the city's artificially-lit night.

Creatures of the shadow.

When I came out in 1972, I joined the men of those cities.

Even though for me the urban environment was hostile.

But where else could I go to be "a homosexual?"

Since to be homosexual was to commit a crime against nature, one could not live naturally.

Now: The early gay rights movement emerged in the 1950s, Gay Liberation marched out of the ghettos in 1970, the gay male community and with it the concept of gay as ethnicity jelled in 1975; and AIDS appeared in 1981.

Indeed, in terms of the history of HIV, which certainly predates 1981, and which remains a dangerous and active force in human affairs, the years 1982-1995 are known as "The AIDS Era."

For that's when, in the post-industrial West, HIV did most of its killing.

And during that era, as had been the case for decades before, those who most closely and scientifically studied animal behavior continued to maintain that homosexuality was not seen among animals.

Until the mid 1990s.

When, with what felt like great suddeness, a spate of articles and then books appeared describing same-sex sex and "bonding" among animals.

Particularly among birds and mammals.

It turned out that ethologists had long known about "homosexual" behavior in the animals they'd studied.

But that they'd suppressed that knowledge.

Because they didn't want to get defunded; because they didn't want to be accused of being gay.

In short, and not to put too fine a point on it, because they were COWARDS.

And I mean it.

I am livid when I think of what these people did, and how they suppressed the truth.

TRUTH is what people need.

Not lies.

And not obfuscations.

And if, by virtue of study or place, you're in possession of the truth -- you need to let it and get it out.

Not keep it bottled up to protect your funding.

There are to this day people who do that about HIV, MSM, and masturbation.

They won't talk about it because they want to protect their funding.

Dr Chin is NOT one of those people.

He says, openly and plainly, in The AIDS Pandemic, that MSM need to look to non-penetrative sex;

and he gives the Alliance a footnote -- he says, see man2manalliance.org for more information on non-penetrative alternatives.

That takes some courage.

But -- and be that as it may -- we have now known for at least a decade that same-sex affection, same-sex bonding, and same-sex sex is not merely present among other mammals, but is common.

Arguably, it's the norm.

For, as my foreign friend has pointed out, most mammals are not "heterosexual" in the sense of spending most of their time with the opposite sex.

Rather, they have contact with the opposite sex just a few times in their lives for purposes of mating.

And that mating is very brief -- it occupies often just a few minutes.

Then they go back to either living alone or living in homosocial -- that is, same-sex -- groups.

My foreign friend:

If you look at mammals as a species in the wild, you will find that there is only sex for procreation --- which by itself does not characterise heterosexuality. Most mammalian males if they mate, do it only a few times in their lives. And a big segment does not mate at all.

And there is no bonding with females at all --- well barring a few exceptions (1%).

Male-female mating is extremely short --- sometimes as short as a few seconds. After which the male and female depart abruptly without as much as a 'goodbye' or a parting kiss --- which are characteristic of masculine behaviour in the west. The male and female usually never see each other again. I wouldn't call that heterosexuality.

And then, there is no evidence of a presence of sexual repulsion towards other males --- even in the few males who do develop what can be remotely termed as a bond with females.

On the contrary, latest research (by the likes of Bruce Bagemihl) reveal that male-male sex is a near universal concept amongst mammalian males (from 90% in some species to 100%).

In other words there is no heterosexuality in nature. At least not in mammals. There is some heterosexuality in some other species --- like in birds and insects (where it seems to be the norm if we are to believe the fruitfly study!), but humans are mammals not insects.

Which means that homosocial arrangements and same-sex sex, far from being an aberration, abnormal, anomalous, or unnatural, among mammals, are common and the norm.

That fact -- and that idea -- of its very nature MUST be upsetting to people in our contemporary culture.

For our culture teaches that "homosexuality" is restricted to a tiny minority -- less than 3% of men; and that everyone else is "straight" -- which means exclusively heterosexual.

And, you see, that's no good.

Because now human society is out of sync with nature.

And that will never do.

Enter Professor Roselli of Oregon Health and Science University.

According to an article in the New York Times, Professor Roselli asserts that about 8% of male sheep -- that is, rams -- do not seek to mate with female sheep, but "only" with other rams.

He wants to know why that is.

So he's been experimenting on them and killing them -- he says he kills about 18 a year -- in the name of advancing science.

Now in reporting this story, the Times recorded both the fact of the research, and the fact that it had touched off a lot of protest, from gay people, from groups like PETA, and from gay people who belong to groups like PETA.

PETA doesn't like the research because it doesn't like any research on animals, and sees this particular research as particularly egregious.

While the gay people are afraid that the professor will find a "cure for homosexuality" -- in which case their very existence would be threatened.

In its reporting, the Times -- and this should come as a shot across the bow to its gay allies -- was not real sympathetic towards the protesters.

The Times made clear, from the tone of the article, that it supports Free Speech, Free Inquiry, and of course, Science.

Let the facts fall where they may.

But that raises a lot of questions.

Professor Roselli presents his research as being culturally neutral.

Having NOTHING -- not even the slightest ittsiest-bittsiest thing -- to do with the raging debates and culture wars over "homosexuality."

No, no, he says, I'm a scientist, free of cultural bias, and I'm just trying to expand human knowledge.

In my experience, however, scientists are not free of cultural bias.

Maybe there's no cultural bias in fields like physics -- though I don't think even that is true;

but in my experience the closer the research is to some issue which concerns the politics and culture of human beings -- such as AIDS prevention and certainly such as sexuality -- the more bias there is.

So when someone like Dr Roselli says I'm free of cultural bias, and I'm just trying to expand human knowledge --

it begs the question -- why and to what ends?

Dare I say -- that the infamous Dr Mengele of Nazi German too wanted to expand human knowledge.

For purposes of eugenics -- of improving the Aryan race.

And actually, Dr Roselli says something similar -- though it's just about sheep.

Here's the Times:

The goal, he says, is to understand the fundamental mechanisms of sexual orientation in sheep. Other researchers might some day build on his findings to seek ways to determine which rams are likeliest to breed, he said.

Uh-huh.

But how pressing a question is the matter of which rams are likeliest to breed?

I mean, is there a sheep shortage?

Are we suffering from a deficit of wool?

Have there been dire predictions of "peak lamb" if we don't soon come to grips with the ram-breeding problem?

I mean, you know, aren't sheep doing just fine as is?

Then there was a press release from Dr Roselli's university -- that's the one with the rather Orwellian name of the University of Health and Science -- which asserted that the research

also has broader implications for understanding the development and control of sexual motivation and mate selection across mammalian species, including humans.

Oh.

I see.

"mate selection"

Well, why would we need to understand "the development and *control* of sexual motivation and mate selection across mammalian species, including humans" -- unless we wanted to do something about it?

Isn't that why we usually seek to understand such things -- so that we can -- influence them, as it were?

And what's Professor Roselli's personal interest in all this?

Where does he stand in the culture wars?

And how does he self-define?

Because what's implied in this research are certain societal assumptions -- that there are gay men and straight men, gay sheep and straight sheep -- and that the straight sheep are normal and the gay sheep are not.

Right?

Because those are the sheep he's studying.

The gay sheep.

Which STRONGLY IMPLIES that same-sex sex among sheep is an aberration, abnormal, and ipso facto UNnatural.

And which puts us RIGHT BACK where we were in my boyhood.

It's as though our heterosexualized society is saying -- we don't care what you learn about what is normal and natural for mammals or MEN -- we will always treat it as abnormal and aberrant and an anomaly.

And we'll try to figure out ways to change it.

Did I mention that this research is being funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health?

Your tax dollars bro.

But hey, whatever you do, keep payin those taxes and -- don't support this site.

In discussing this with Jim S -- who wrote to deepen, not weaken, masculinity and society's procrustean bed, Jim said of this sort of research,

It damages all men -- it treats same-sex affection as an anomaly and in isolation and somehow curable.

That's correct.

It damages ALL MEN --it treats SAME-SEX AFFECTION as an ANOMALY and in isolation and somehow CURABLE.

Jim wondered

What percentage of rams show a partial interest in other rams?

Good question -- we don't know.

And said Jim,

re the researcher -- not only what does he do in bed, but what does he WANT to do in bed that he hasn't done?

How many men know that something is there but don't know what it is -- because we become so separated from our own inner selves?

Right.

"How many men know that something is there but don't know what it is -- because we become so separated from our own inner selves?"

How many men?

The effect of this sort of research is to damage those men.

To encourage them to remain separated -- divorced -- from their own inner selves.

Just as all the lies told about nature and sexuality when I was a boy had as their intent to SEPARATE ME from MY INNER SELF.

Somehow those lies didn't succeed.

I'm not sure why.

I can tell you though that to preserve my sense of self in the midst of those lies required a titanic struggle, a war of sorts, and that I did not -- no strongly same-sex attracted man of my generation did -- come out of that war unscathed.

It was damaging.

It took me a long time to see the Truth.

Professor Roselli, using the tools and vocabulary of science, claims to be involved in a quest for truth.

I don't believe him.

Because the effect of his research is to prop up our current societal notions of gay and straight.

Straight is normal.

Gay is abnormal.

And the two never cross.

Rams.

Of course there's the football team, but think Dodge Ram.

How many Dodge Rams are sold each year in the US?

300,000 maybe?

And how many men buy Dodge Rams because they associate the truck with what we call "cultural masculinity" -- that is, a highly heterosexualized cultural view of masculinity which makes a direct link between heterosexual prowess and manliness?

When in reality, Manliness and Masculinity have nothing to do with heterosexuality.

And what about Statius and his bulls?

I know that some of you think that Roman poetry is a waste of time.

But when the hero Polynices loses his brother-of-the-heart Tydeus to an enemy spear in battle, Statius compares the two men to BULLS:

So, when the colleague of his toil is lost,
A bull in numb despair leaves in mid-field
The furrow he's begun; the yoke's awry,
As one end on his drooping neck he bears
And one the ploughman shoulders, pouring tears.

The Romans then, who lived far closer to nature than do we, did not attempt to separate the love of man for man from the love of bull for bull.

Statius: a BULL who loses his comrade is left in "numb despair."

"numb despair"

I lost my first partner, and "numb despair" is a very apt description of what you feel.

But Statius is talking about BULLS.

He's talking about male bonding between BULLS.

Which when I was a boy I was told did NOT exist.

And which Dr Roselli would do away with -- if he could.

But only, you understand, for the good of the bulls -- so that they could breed better and have a higher quality of mate selection and sexual motivation -- that sort of thing --

and for the good of humanity too.

It wouldn't be done for any other reason.

Oh no -- not for any other reason.

This is scientific research after all, which is always undertaken for the common good.

Sometimes, in reading the newspaper -- more than sometimes I suppose -- I get the sense of living on a different planet from the reporter and the publisher and the actors in the story.

In the case of the gay sheep and the neutral researcher, everyone's assuming that homosexual and heterosexual are categories which in some way correspond to the real world.

They don't.

And the gay people in particular, though I agree with their outrage, clearly believe that their sexual orientation -- which is a chimera -- can be excised from their brains.

It cannot be -- at least not without destroying all sexuality.

If you subtract male-male desire from the male, what you get is NOT an exclusively heterosexual male -- what you get is a eunuch.

Redd says, we're all homo sapiens so we're all homo sexual.

He's making a play on words and he's correct.

Homo sapiens: Homo = man / sapiens = knowing

Homo sexual: Homo = same / sexual = sex

But if you look at the homo as man in the sense of "mankind," then Redd's absolutely right.

We're all homo sexual because we're all having sex within our species.

As are the sheep, by the way.

They too are having sex within their species.

So why the fuss?

Dr Roselli clearly thinks the rams are abnormal.

While the gay-identified people are afraid that if someone can identify a gene or a hormone which makes people "gay," that gene or hormone will be eliminated.

No.

In reality, you cannot divy up human sexuality the way both the gay community and the straight community have been trying to.

It's a fantasy.

Actually, not so much a fantasy as what used to be called a "folie a deux" -- a delusion shared by two people, or, in this case, two cultures, which act to at once collude with and confuse each other.

As I've said before, I don't like people studying "homosexuality" and "homosexuals" as though they were insects -- it outrages me -- and I'd have no hesitation in telling this professor so, and digging deep to find out his actual motive in doing this research.

But at the same time -- I have a hard time taking the research seriously.

I know that sounds at odds.

But it's like this.

The research outrages me -- even though, from my point of view, it's utterly goofy.

This is a letter I received a few weeks back -- the writer is a straight-identified guy who lives in a Southern state:

I found this site by accident. I got curious. I can't get enough of it. I did cock to cock a couple of times on campouts as a teen. I had a Frottage 22 years ago with a college buddy after too many drinks. We never spoke of it again but I've never been able to forget it. Now I'm 45, married, 2 kids. Love em. But I've always wanted to do this again.

I'm a masculine, southern man who lives in the Bible Belt. You can imagine the local taboos involved. I could care less about anal sex. Creeps me out. I would be paranoid about HIV anyway. I have a family to protect.

I live in a very masculine world. Hunting, fishing, golf. I really like all of that. I like masculine guys.

I spend a lot of time with those guys ... but none would be approachable.

I'd like to use your website to get some of them familiar with this idea. I have to tell you I get aroused in a big way knowing there are others who have the same feelings.

I figured there were others but I didn't know how to approach it. Now I can. I don't understand why, but the night after I viewed your site for the first time, my wife and I had the best sex in a long time. I came like a trojan.

Anyway, I would guess there are a lot a guys in my position that don't have options. I just have to figure out how to be discreet. A great website. I get hard every time I see it.

I have to tell you: The idea that regular guys could be intimate with regular guys aroused me more than anything I could have seen.

Thanks,

Joe

Joe said:

"The idea that regular guys could be intimate with regular guys aroused me more than anything I could have seen."

Right.

Regular guys with regular guys.

I wonder what Dr Roselli would do if he could get his hands on their regular guy brains.

Now: we know that Joe is not unusual -- to put it mildly.

His story is typical of the straight-identified men on this site and in the Alliance.

They have cock2cock experiences as teens and young adults.

They marry heterosexually -- and, usually, happily.

But they never forget those male-male, masculine, manly experiences of their youth either.

And they seek to have them again.

But they assume, as Joe does, that the masculine men of their acquaintance don't share their feelings.

Which is what the culture tells them to do: they confuse "heterosexual" aka "straight" -- with masculine.

Joe:

I live in very masculine world. Hunting, fishing, golf. I really like all of that. I like masculine guys.

I spend a lot of time with those guys ... but none would be approachable.

I pointed out to Joe that those men assume the same about him.

So what you've got is all these strong, masculine guys out there hunting and fishing and golfing together -- all shut up in their little shells, afraid to approach each other.

Which is how our heterosexualized society wants them to be.

As my foreign friend pointed out in his anecdote about the stallions, males are easier to control -- if they're prevented from bonding.

Then Joe says,

I don't understand why, but the night after I viewed your site for the first time, my wife and I had the best sex in a long time. I came like a trojan.

Gee.

Let's ask Dr. Roselli: Was it Joe's heterosexual lobe or his homosexual lobe which gave him that big orgasm?

Maybe the good doctor could stick some electrodes in Joe's brain -- and find out.

Now -- I titled this post "Crimes against nature."

Dr Roselli's research is, to my mind, such a crime.

The sheep are fine as they are.

Joe's fine as he is.

There's no need to study them -- particularly since in the process you end up killing them.

Suppose we started studying Joe -- who's having great sex with his wife while entertaining warm and affiliative thoughts about his buddies -- wouldn't we kill Joe too?

Haven't we -- we in the sense of society -- already de facto -- IN FACT -- killed Joe?

He's 45.

He's spent 22 years thinking about his last "Frottage" as he calls it.

Haven't we for all those 22 years forced him to be separated from his TRUE and inner masculine self?

I said -- his TRUE masculine self.

Not his socially-sanctioned exclusively heterosexual masculine self.

Which is FALSE.

But his TRUE masculine self.

His naturally masculine self.

Bill Weintraub:

First, let's start with the Frot component of this.

What's apparent is that when mammals are anatomically able to Frot -- they do.

Which is why we see the behavior in chimps -- bonobos; and in dolphins, whales, and manatees.

The chimps, dolphins, and whales are, of course, by human standards, "intelligent."

But I don't think that's true of manatees -- they're herbivores and don't need to be particularly smart.

So I don't think this is a question of smarts.

I think it's more a question of, first off, is this anatomically possible?

If you look at some of the other passages in Bagemihl, what you'll see is that four-legged animals often mount each other and rub -- the way your dog will do your leg.

That's frottage -- sexual rubbing.

Clearly, it would be difficult for most four-legged animals like dogs or rams or bulls to rub cocks.

Though -- if they could figure out a way to do it -- they would.

Because it's intrinsically pleasurable.

So Frot is a completely NATURAL behavior -- among animals -- and among humans.

Now let's return to the issues raised in this post.

Given the abundance of what Bagemihl calls "animal homosexuality," what's Dr Roselli -- he's the man at the Orwellian-named University of Science and Health who's been killing rams who seek to "mate" with other rams so that he can dissect their brains -- what's he going to do?

Will he make a career of it?

Where he kills bottlenose dophins and gray whales and manatees and otters and seals and bulls and so on and so on and so on -- all in the name of determining which are "likeliest to breed" and controlling "sexual motivation and mate selection?"

Those are the reasons given in the Times article.

Problem: none of these species are having difficulties breeding.

And they're doing just fine when it comes to sexual motivation and mate selection.

They're having a lot of sex and they're choosing the mates they please.

So -- why do they have to be studied and killed or killed and studied?

I mean, the killing's always in there -- right?

I mean, hey, when it comes to "bisexuality" / "homosexuality" there's a virtually unlimited supply of potential victims out there because we're talking the entire animal kingdom.

Lots of dead meat on the way guys.

And I'm not kidding about this because what I've seen over the course of my 59 years of being "a homosexual" is that creeps like Roselli turn THEIR OWN and society's discomfort with Manly Love and Womanly Affection into lucrative careers.

At this point, Roselli's "research" is being funded by our very own National Institutes of Health.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

There are the books, the magazine and newspaper articles, the talk shows, the TV specials, the webcasts -- there's no end to the opportunities for someone who's willing eager and able to exploit our heterosexualized society's obsession with and confusion about same-sex love.

I've seen this over and over again in my life.

In the 60s and 70s there were two psychoanalytically-based "therapists" -- Bieber and Socarides -- whose entire careers consisted of telling "homosexuals" that they were mentally ill and claiming to "cure" them.

Socarides died not too long ago -- it turned out that he had a gay-identified son.

Apparently they didn't much talk about it.

I wonder if Roselli has kids.

What's he going to do if one of his male children seeks to mate with another male?

Kill him and dissect his brain?

I also know from my life experience that every time some idiot like Roselli or Socarides says it's the parents, it's a hormone, it's a gene -- MEN in our fucked-up, fucked-over, heterosexualized and heterosexist society are done enormous damage.

Not just gay-identified men.

But ALL MEN.

When I started this effort more than seven years ago now, I wrote about cultural tyrannies.

I talked about the Heterosexual Dictatorship and the Buttfuck Dictatorship.

And I warned my fellow MEN that the ONLY WAY to survive is to CHALLENGE those tyrannies.

CONSTANTLY AND WITHOUT CEASING.

YOU CANNOT FOR A MOMENT LET SOMEONE LIKE ROSELLI GO UNCHALLENGED.

That will kill you.

The guys who didn't challenge the Heterosexual Dictatorship ended up internalizing a "mentally ill" self-image -- and they either committed suicide outright or spent a lifetime trying to dull the pain with drugs and alcohol.

The guys who didn't challenge the Buttfuck Dictatorship ended up dying of AIDS.

And to this day they continue to get infected with HIV and HPV and who knows what else -- and with what result we cannot be certain.

So: when, in the face of all the evidence we have of joyful and affectionate and loving same-sex activity among animals, someone like Roselli insists on treating that activity as abnormal, anomalous, aberrant, and deserving of dissection --

you need to understand that there's something very WRONG with Roselli.

Because it can't work both ways.

Either there's something wrong with Nature --

or there's something wrong with Roselli.

And if there's something wrong with Nature -- then there's something wrong with YOU.

And YOU have to decide whether you think that's true.

Is there something WRONG with YOU?

Is there?

Are you less than a MAN because you want to rub cocks with another MAN?

If so, are the dolphins less than dolphins, the whales less than whales, the manatees less than manatees, the chimps less than chimps?

Are the rams less than rams?

The bulls less than bulls?

Do YOU not see that the animals themselves do not question the behavior?

If the animals don't, why then do YOU?

Robert:

How many human lives have been destroyed by the false science of our society? How many people, male and female, are IMPRISONED in their own minds afraid to be who they really are and do what they really want to do? How many people have already been separated from their INNER SELVES and no longer even have a clue to who or what they really are? And, what has been the cost of all this to the world, to the brotherhood of man? The cost, rest assured, has been GREAT!! The psychological and spiritually DEAD are EVERYWHERE today!

I would encourage everyone to get out into nature and OBSERVE the OBVIOUS! You will discover that you are more normal than you think. You will begin to discover your INNER and NATURAL SELF! You will find much within yourself that is natural and very much in tune with NATURE. You will become ALIVE again and stop being one of the DEAD! And, finally, as you connect with nature and become a part of nature instead of fighting against nature you will begin to LIVE IN THE LIGHT as you come out of the darkness emposed upon you by modern society. And when you return to society all the HYPOCRISY and LIES will be obvious to you and you will laugh at the sheer IGNORANCE that so plagues modern society today especially the ignorance regarding homosexuality as being "abnormal."

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2007 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.