So instead of talking about "hyper-masculinity," how bout talking about NATURAL MASCULINITY?

Because that's really what's at issue.

More so than the merely masculine man,

NO.

Because you're dividing the human race in ways that are completely unnecessary and absurd.

"merely masculine" men are Warriors too.

They have to be to survive.

Otherwise they'll be wiped out by the men of other tribes and their genes will be lost.

and definitely more so than the feminine man.

There are NO "feminine men."

There are feminine women.

And masculine men.

That's it.

Culture can warp that.

It cannot change it.

Even a post-op transgender has the genes he or she was born with.

It would make sense that in ancient warrior cultures that these hyper-masculine men would be exalted. I would think they would have been like the nuclear weapons of their day. Wouldn't other societies be encouraged to exalt the hyper-masculine men within their own ranks, or face anihilation from the stronger tribe? It would encourage a sort of arms race of testosterone.

It's not hyper-masculinity, it's being a good warrior.

Warriors were exalted because they were needed.

And all men were warriors.

It does appear to be true that certain leaders, sometimes called by anthropologists "Big Men," achieved a very high reproductive success by having multiple wives.

And lots of kids.

That's said of Ghengis Khan for example.

But that doesn't mean that men who are not descended from Ghengis lack the "warrior gene."

Or that the other men in the Golden Horde weren't warriors.

Because believe me Ghengis didn't do it all by himself.

He may have been a Big Man, but the Horde was a BIG GROUP undertaking.

It was a WARRIOR collective.

Very dangerous and very effective.

And all those guys reproduced.

Their Y chromosomes were transmitted from father to son.

Essentially unchanged.

Which means they're still around today.

Hoplite, Centurion, Hebrew, Hun, Zulu, Celt, Azande, Viking Berserker, Teutonic Knight, Samurai, Indian Brave, Maori -- their Y chromosomes are still here.

Again, being a Warrior is CORE to being a MAN.

Not just some men.

Or a few men.

ALL MEN.

There might be a biological reason feminine men don't relate to masculinity, and the opposite would be true also. Maybe homosexuality (or for that matter, heterosexuality) is just a lot more complicated than how it's popularly portrayed.

NO IT'S NOT.

The opposite is true.

Human sexuality is far less complicated than our society represents it as being.

What happened is that as part of the process of heterosexualization, MEN who loved MEN were steadily excluded from that society in the 40s 50s and 60s.

And that when Gay Lib came along, a lot of these men found themselves in the sexual orientation ghetto, aka "gay community."

Because they had nowhere else to go.

And they haven't been comfortable or happy there because of the dominant culture which is fed by IDEOLOGY -- not biology.

There are TWO sexes.

Not three or five or ten.

When you start hypothesizing that there are many sexes, you do tremendous damage to Men who Love Men.

Because you rob them of their Masculinity, and you also separate them from their fellows.

It's disgusting.

You also do tremendous damage to men who are trying to escape analist culture.

Case in point: JK.

He came to us saying that he'd played the role of "weak fag" and "hole" all his life.

Now he wants to stop doing anal and reclaim his masculinity.

I've had email correspondence with him and it's clear to me that he's a man.

Like every other man.

But he's struggling because he's living in an analist subculture.

If you start telling him that he's innately effeminate -- you condemn him to spend the rest of his life there.

And probably condemn him to HIV too.

Because what we've seen is that men grouped by age in that culture -- what the epidemiologists call "cohorts" - tend to get "saturated" with the virus.

Infection is looking more and more like an inevitability.

That, perhaps, is what happened to Mr. Andriote.

Why condemn hundreds of thousands more men to that fate -- because we want to be part of fashionable gender theory?

I've seen so many fashionable theories in my day: psychoanalyis, behaviorism, existentialism, phenomenonology, constructionism, queer theory, gender theory, etc.

And what good have they done?

I think that to condemn men to HIV on the basis of something as intellectually suspect as gender theory is OBSCENE.

Two central truths:

MEN HAVE SEX WITH MEN.

MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN ARE MEN.

I'm 58.

I've been out for 34 years.

I've had sex with a lot of guys.

Including effeminate guys.

Like I've said before -- every one of the men I've had sex with -- has been --

A MAN!

You'd think, if men who have sex with men aren't really men, I'd have found one in the last thirty-four years who wasn't a man.

Never happened.

Including among the effeminate guys.

When you get an effeminate guy into bed and get his clothes off, he gets hard and grunts and groans and thrusts and shoots just like every other man.

I'm talking FROT of course, I'm not talking buttfuck.

I'm talking something that doesn't rob him of his masculinity, but instead RECALLS HIM TO IT.

That's what this is about and that's what this FIGHT is about.

Recalling MEN to their birthright -- which is MASCULINITY.

I am constantly and unceasingly attacked -- and I have been for six years -- for telling the TRUTH.

About FROT, about anal, about MASCULINITY, and about effeminacy.

If what I were saying were not the truth, there'd be no need to attack me.

But it is the TRUTH.

MEN HAVE SEX WITH MEN.

Normal.

Common.

And the NATURAL way for MEN to have sex with MEN is Manhood2Manhood Phallus2Phallus Cock2Cock Dick2Dick Cockrub FROT.

The anus and rectum are not sexual organs.

In that regard, whether a man is effeminate or masculine doesn't matter.

His affect does not change the anatomy and physiology of the colon.

The anus constitutes, as one writer said, a "delicate, exit-only mechanism."

When men or women violate that mechanism, they invite trouble.

And they find it.

This site, this Alliance, the sexual act that we here celebrate, and our loyalty to each other are about MASCULINITY.

PHALLIC

AGGRESSIVE

FAITHFUL

We are committed to the Sacred Bonds Between Men.

Guys -- the people being bludgeoned are YOU.

YOU'RE the ones under attack.

Bludgeoned:

by the analists

the religious right

the heterosexists

the gender theorists

the queer theorists

the gender feminists

many of them by the way FUNDED by the US and UK and Canadian governments.

Guys -- don't let crap like gender theory separate you from what God and Nature gave you in such abundance:

Your Masculinity;

and

Your WARRIOR SPIRIT.

FIGHT BACK

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

Frances

Re: bludgeoned

10-22-2006

YOU ARE RIGHT.

It was very stupid, and shallow. I'm sorry.

Frances

Bill G

Re: bludgeoned

10-22-2006

Wow Bill,

Fantastic post!!!!

Bill G

Bill Weintraub

Re: bludgeoned

10-22-2006

Thank you both Frances and Bill.

Frances, you don't have to apologize.

You're not a "gay" man and you're not a "straight" man, so your experience of this stuff is limited.

But that you're not a man is part of what makes your presence here valuable -- because you're presenting a woman's perspective.

Now: Gender theory can be seductive.

Because it appears to explain a lot -- particularly about contemporary society and sex roles.

And that's why it's popular in certain quarters.

But that doesn't mean it's right.

As I've said, I've seen a lot of these fashionable theories come and go.

What concerns me about them, aside from their detachment from the real world, is that their net effect is to deny Men their Masculinity.

And that's very serious.

I speak of Masculinity as a Divine Principle and of Manhood as a Divine Gift.

And I describe Phallic Bonding as a Sacrament.

While Robert speaks of Masculine men being co-creators with each other and with the Divine.

That's a beautiful phrase describing something which is not just beautiful but holy.

And which these fashionable theories would destroy.

So the harm is not just physical or psychological, it's spiritual.

And that's not something we can abide.

In any case, I talk about some of these issues in a number of posts, including

The Fallacy of the Feminine;

The Power of the Masculine;

Natural Masculinity and the Weight of the Lies; and

Creating a Masculine, socially dignified space: Loving a Man as a Man.

And I encourage people to re-visit those posts -- and all the more recent posts on this board and archived in Warriors Speak VII.

Here's the main thing:

The core heterosexist lie -- that real men don't have sex with men -- is so powerful and so entrenched that it distorts everything about men and sex.

That lie must be destroyed.

It's inimical to NATURAL MASCULINITY.

Which depends, for its full development, on men being able to relate phallically to other men.

Natural Masculinity -- true Masculinity -- and what we call "Heroic Homosex" -- which is phallus2phallus -- can not be separated.

They are linked and intertwined.

Phallus is Manhood

Manhood is Man

Before MEN can be fully MEN again, then, they must be able to rediscover and reclaim their PHALLIC, NATURAL, MASCULINITY.

And everything we do should be in the service of that goal.

I hope to revisit this issue in the next day or so.

Thank you both.

You're both true Warriors.

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

Frances

Re: bludgeoned

10-22-2006

Here's the thing, I came to this site in the spirit of that post. I wanted to take something human and hold it in the palm of my hand (kind of God-like) and view it with curious dispassion.

I think I remember myself as a child who viewed the world with a passionate understanding that it was part of me and I of it. I learned over the years that it was far less painful to remove myself, and you're right, there are all kinds of forces in this world that invite you to do just that, and they are powerful, prevailing forces.

So, little did I suspect that I was coming to a site with spritiuality at its core. That there was someone of great moral courage and integrity running this site. I told you it has been like coming to church for me. I had experienced church as something dead that spoke at me not to me. I counted the tiles on the ceilling for many a childhood church service.

There's spiritual force here. One can't help but recognize it if one reads. I'm trying to find my way home.

Thank you Bill

Redd

Re: bludgeoned

10-23-2006

Bill's observation about the imposing dominance of theory on culture is profound.

Theory today, coming from the humanities in academia, ignores biology and science generally. Theorists often focus on post-structuralism introduced in the late 1960s by French post-structuralist Jacques Derrida who introduced deconstruction. Basically, deconstruction claims that God is dead, hence, so is the author of literature, as Roland Barthes purported. Nothing is stable, especially knowledge.

Theorists focused on language without considering science, the more stable form of human knowledge. A form of science coined "homosexual" in 1869, but during the time man2man that was natural, meaning masculine, wasn't questioned, wasn't suspect because it was man; it was communal. Men who attempted to be feminine led to the term "homosexual."

Aside: As I mentioned in another thread, I think "homosexual" as it was intended is a misnomer. The human species had been scientifically established as homo-sapien by the late 1800s--"homo" to mean "same." Logically, to me at least, "homo" sexual defines the sexuality of all "homo" sapiens. And given the fact that most mammalians demonstrate "bi"-sexuality, "homosexual" seems to better define homo-sapiens, that is, species who are attracted to their own species. Which means that all homo-sapiens are homo-sexual; all are attracted to their own species. Hence, whether the attraction is man2man, woman2woman, and/or man2woman (the combinations of which don't really matter), the attraction is homosexual. "Heterosexual" would mean two different species.

Now if we notice what heterosexualization has done to communal relationships, we would see, as Bill and others have noted (see The Power of the Masculine), that theorists have created a culture that is not scientifically sound.

Terms like "hyper-masculine" are theoretical. "Hyper-masculine" assumes that some part of masculinity is feminine and that man's natural aggression is "hyper." If you notice, many little boys' natural aggression is dubbed "hyper"--e.g., "hyperactive"--and the little boys are often drugged to quell their natural expression of masculinity. Heterosexualization attempts to control natural male aggression early in a man's life when he's a boy.

Terms like "hyper-masculine" impose a cultural paradigm wherein masculinity is understood from the feminine, not from the masculine. "Gay" as analists promote and define it is effeminate. Analists are men who think that they have a "sexual orientation" that makes them effeminate. They attempt to ground "sexual orientation" in science, when "sexual orientation" is a cultural term, not a scientific one.

Man is Man. He ain't got no feminine in him. His glory is his masculinity, just as women's glory is their femininity. Man is whole; woman is whole.

Bill makes another profound point: heterosexuality is the oddity. Forcing men and women to interact has created problems, I think, with abuse of all sort. The operative word in that last sentence is "forcing." Of course, I don't mean that men and women aren't attracted to each other because they are. But they can be and are attracted to each other without being forced to socialize.

In short, a lot of what we "know" about society are cultural creations. Man, masculinity, manhood, etc. isn't a cultural creation. Woman isn't a cultural creation. Man is man; woman is woman. He ain't no woman; she ain't no man. Man is whole and woman is whole. Manhood is divine; womanhood is divine.

Culture has separated man from himself by telling him that he has a feminine aspect, a feminine gene. Rather than recognizing that man2man is man, not feminine.

Redd

Robert Loring

Re: bludgeoned

10-24-2006

Another great and informative post Redd. And, your absolutely right. M2M was not questioned in 1869 prior to the term "homosexual" being coined. In fact, males bonding was the social norm and the social expectation. If a man did not bond with other males then there was considered to be something "wrong" with him. Today, however, it is just the opposite and this serves as yet one more shining example of how our present society is a society turned upside down and proving further that it is the EXCEPTION and NOT the historical or traditional NORM. Much of what is really cultural is being passed off today as being "science." Yet, it is not science at all.

Looking at old pictures from the 1800's and those from the WWI and WWII eras we see images of males captured by the camera that are very different from what we see today. We see males shirtless and even nude with their arms around their "buddy" and without any shame on their faces. These men had their girlfriends, wives, and families but they tended to be "buddies" for life. They were so comfortable with each other, with their "buds," that being nude with each other or hugging each other was something never even thought about as being "queer." It was socially acceptable for men to hug their buddies, to be shirtless with each other, and even to be naked with their buddies. Wrestling and innate male aggression were accepted as being normal and a man's innate tendency to be competitive was encouraged not discouraged as it is today. Preachers and philosophers spoke of the brotherhood of man, a term hardly heard today and seldom uttered. Frot between masculine males was something considered "normal" not "homosexual." All this M2M brotherly love was considered NATURAL and NORMAL masculine male behavior. But, today it's all considered to be abnormal as society has continued to march down the industrialization road towards it's own physical, psychological, and spiritual demise!

Males in other cultures still share this sense of brotherhood and love with other males. In some cultures to kiss another male is considered the proper way for men to greet one another. In some cultures, for males to spend most of their time with other males is considered to be the way things were meant to be. Tribal and other cultures DO NOT appear to share the HOMOPHOBIA that has so destroyed Western cultures psycho-spiritually!

Homophobia has only served to drive a wedge between males and enchain natural male bonding. It has served to try to turn males into something they are NOT and were NEVER intended to be. It has turned Western society upside down and directed it towards the psychotic and sociopath. Today all Western people are paying the price for that as we move further and further apart from one another and increasing come to live in a culture void of natural love and dominated by extremes. Hopelessness has replaced Hope and many in Western society today feel an overwhelming sense of disconnection and loneliness as we go ever deeper into becoming a culture rooted in fear, the opposite of love.

Males have a natural need to be with other males. Males have a natural need to express their innate male aggression. I'm not talking unbridled aggression here. Historically, male aggression has been tempered with self discipline but, again, Western society is one which knows little about self discipline and restraint. Warriors and soldiers were taught to honor male aggression but they were also taught how to discipline themselves and their innate male aggressiveness so they would become men of HONOR instead of men of dishonor.

Culture along with industrialization has played a big role in the demise of masculinity. We have come to a point in which all Western people, male and female, must ask themselves just what kind of culture we have created today because our present culture is plagued with growing problems that should not be acceptable to anyone. It is clear to me that modern Western culture has a Death Wish and at the rate we are going now culturally we seem to be carrying out that Death Wish.

Some of us have had enough of modern Western culture and we try to find ways NOT to be a part of it. We spend as much time as possible AWAY from the psychotic culture out in the wilderness somewhere where we can still find a sense of natural manhood, peace, and joy, and YES, even LOVE. We await the fall of Western society (and it is falling) and the return to the natural, historical, and traditional NORMS! We await the return of a culture in which males are free to love other males and in which homophobia is no longer known, praised, or worshipped. We see clearly how natural human culture has been destroyed in the West and we await the resurrection of natural human culture as it was intended by the Divine to be. In short, we await a return to the old ways and ancient culture and the rebirth of the brotherhood of man.

There comes a point in the lives of the sane when one decides "Enough is Enough!" Many are reaching that point today. Many are opting OUT of the lost society we are being forced to live in and walking BACK into the arms of what is historically and traditionally the NORM for human culture in general. To go against thousands or millions of years of human normalcy is always a mistake! Thus, none of us should be surprised by the great crisis Western society is in today. What did we expect when we turned our backs on the ancient ways of our ancestors? What did we expect when we chose to turn away from the Divine and towards our own false selves, egos? The very moment Western society turned away from the historical and traditional norms was the very moment our culture assured itself of self destruction. If we truly desire a future for our culture then we cannot continue walking down the road that goes against nature and the natural. We can no longer afford to deny our innate manhood and try to be creatures never intended to be (ie: pseudo-man). Any society or individual that lives their lives in fear is a society or person assured of self destruction. Fear is always a destroyer and never a real Creator. Brotherly love, the opposite of fear, is the only Creator.

I wish I had a million $$$ so I could buy a shit-load of land and re-establish a culture that fit in with the traditional and historical norms. But, I don't and so I am just one more voice screaming out in the midst of the sick wilderness we are all living in today!

Bill Weintraub

Re: bludgeoned

10-29-2006

Thank you all.

These are wonderful posts.

Frances said this is "a site with spirituality at its core."

That's correct, and that's because spirituality is core to the lives of many of our core members.

Our True Warriors.

Speaking for myself, spirituality is core to my life.

Actually, spirituality and sexuality are core to my life.

And they always have been.

For me they're intertwined.

They cannot be separated.

And they're bound up with my love of Men and Masculinity.

Sexuality, Spirituality, Masculinity.

Again, those elements can't be separated or taken apart.

They're a whole.

When I was in my late teens and early 20s, I entered into psychotherapy in an effort to become heterosexual.

And according to the psycho-sexual theories of the day, the only way for me to do that was to deny my love of men and manliness.

Here's how I describe that process in a forthcoming memoir:

For seven years I toiled mightily in the vineyards of psychoanalysis. I learned to hate my mother, to date women, and to do my best never to think about men. It didn't work. The suppression of my erotic longings toward men was not compensated for by an increase in desire for women; rather, I was left with no feelings at all, I became more and more dead inside and began to fear that my spiritless body would itself become nothing more than a desiccated shell.

In short, I was being done to death not just psychologically but spiritually.

And I realized that if I continued with the process, there'd be nothing left of me.

Just a husk.

Spiritually and morally empty.

Ironically, I now realize, the way to have awakened my love of women would have been to give full and celebratory rein to my love of men.

But in the dichotomous theories of the day, which have persisted into this era, hetero- and homo- sexualities were considered antithetical.

They're not.

As Redd keeps saying:

Logically, to me at least, "homo" sexual defines the sexuality of all "homo" sapiens. And given the fact that most mammalians demonstrate "bi"-sexuality, "homosexual" seems to better define homo-sapiens, that is, species who are attracted to their own species. Which means that all homo-sapiens are homo-sexual; all are attracted to their own species. Hence, whether the attraction is man2man, woman2woman, and/or man2woman (the combinations of which don't really matter), the attraction is homosexual. "Heterosexual" would mean two different species.

Right.

And would that we could get people to understand that.

Unfortunately, today most talk about sex and spirituality is governed by the religious right.

Which seeks not only to divorce the two, but to silence all speech about sex which is not their own.

This is a huge problem, because in our society, speech is regulated by the courts, and the religious right has worked long and hard to place on the bench people who support their censorious views about religion and sex.

But, though the religious right will certainly try, they can't have it both ways.

If they are allowed to talk freely about sex and spirituality, then so am I.

Because my religious views and my fundamental right to freedom of religion are just as valid as theirs.

And in my system:

Masculinity is a Divine Principle, Manhood a Divine Gift, and Frot -- the Marriage of Manhood with Manhood -- a Holy Sacrament.

As Robert Loring has said, "Masculine men are co-creators with each other and with the Divine."

Frot -- the act of Phallic Bonding -- creates a higher order of MAN.

And for me, MAN is SACRED, MAN is HOLY.

MAN.

Made in the image of his CREATOR.

MAN.

Through this sacramental act of the joining of Phallus with Phallus I and my bonded Warrior Brother create a higher Masculine being.

And Masculinity is Sacred.

Robert: "Masculine men are co-creators with each other and with the Divine."

To me, that says that two Masculine Men, united in the act of Phallic Bonding, bring forth or are visited by the Divine, which smiles upon their union as an act of Creation.

The creation of a higher Masculinity.

Sacred Masculinity.

And the Sacred Bonds between Men.

Here's how we define Phallic Bonding:

Powerful physical cum mystical sensation experienced during Frot of two phalluses becoming one, resulting in an intense male-male bond.

"Phallic bonding" expresses both the power of pure masculine genital union and the intensely spiritual nature of Frot at the moment when, as Mart Finn has said, "fighting cocks become mating cocks."

That's what I call the passage through rage to love.

And it's fundamental to male male sexual expression.

It uses MALE AGGRESSION -- and MEN are defined by AGGRESSION -- to bring MEN to LOVE.

Again, it creates a higher order of Masculinity.

Let's be clear about the term "sacrament."

According to Webster's, a sacrament is "a formal religious act that is sacred as a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality"

"Formal" -- meaning having a definite shape or form.

Which Frot does.

Whether it occurs in an area of the home set aside for sex or in God's great cathedral of the forest, mountains, and sea, it is a distinct series of steps leading to a Holy Union.

"Religious" -- in this act we worship the God in Man and the Man in God.

"Sacred" -- Yes.

"As a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality" -- Nothing is more spiritual to me than the union of MAN with MAN.

That has been true of me for my entire life.

And I have spent the last six years creating this movement and these websites which are full of images -- as many as I've been able to find -- of this symbolic and sacred act.

NO ONE CAN SAY THAT THESE IMAGES ARE LESS SACRED TO ME THAN A CONVENTIONAL IMAGE IS TO SOMEONE FOLLOWING A CONVENTIONAL RELIGION.

WHAT I FIND SACRED, WHAT I DEEM HOLY, IS BETWEEN ME AND MY CREATOR.

NO ONE CAN COME BETWEEN US.

No state authority, no religious authority.

NO ONE CAN COME BETWEEN US.

When I look at MAN my soul is exalted and lifted up.

And meditation upon, and the practice of, the sacramental union of Manhood with Manhood is for me a religious act.

This is not just about AIDS.

Though AIDS is a dreadful disease.

Nor is this only about anal.

Though anal, in my view, mocks the Creator.

And let me say, that I've been reluctant to emphasize this simply because I know that some of you have been beat up by religion in your lives and don't want to hear religious talk.

But I can't forever let your abuse at the hands of faithless clerics silence me.

Anal mocks the Creator.

And effeminacy offends the Creator.

Redd:

Man is Man. He ain't got no feminine in him. His glory is his masculinity, just as women's glory is their femininity. Man is whole; woman is whole.

...

In short, a lot of what we "know" about society are cultural creations. Man, masculinity, manhood, etc. isn't a cultural creation. Woman isn't a cultural creation. Man is man; woman is woman. He ain't no woman; she ain't no man. Man is whole and woman is whole. Manhood is divine; womanhood is divine.

Exactly.

Manhood is divine.

Womanhood is divine.

Effeminacy mocks both.

So -- this isn't just about AIDS, and it's not only about anal.

This is about MEN and MASCULINITY which to me are HOLY.

Phallus is Manhood.

Manhood is Man.

Phallus2Phallus.

Man2Man.

For me, for me, for me -- I don't speak for anyone else -- there is nothing more holy than the Phallically Faithful Union of Man with Man.

And I'm putting these thoughts into this message thread titled "bludgeoned" because that is what the religious right, no less than the analists, seeks to do to us.

To bludgeon us for the practice of our faith.

NO.

NO.

NO.

If they get to say it, we get to say it.

Our thoughts about what is holy -- and what is not -- go into the great marketplace of ideas which makes America what it is;

and it's up to the INDIVIDUAL -- the free man and free woman -- to decide who is right and who is not.

In my view, the constant denial of Masculinity, Manliness, and Manly Love by the religious right is blasphemous and fundamentally evil.

And I mean it.

Dr. Green, who's a good person who wants to do the right thing in life, and who has access to these people by virtue of his work, has since the spring brought us to the attention of Rick and Kay Warren, who head Saddleback Ministries, a mega-church and leader in the "evangelical" response to AIDS.

They won't talk to us.

Dr. Green just sent them the TIMELINE.

No response.

Can you imagine that?

Faced with this hideous disease, and having chosen to put themselves forward as "religious people" seeking to respond, they won't talk to a group which advocates Fidelity and Frot, PROVEN methods to fight HIV.

It is sickening, and at a fundamental level, it is evil.

EVIL.

Robert:

Some of us have had enough of modern Western culture and we try to find ways NOT to be a part of it. We spend as much time as possible AWAY from the psychotic culture out in the wilderness somewhere where we can still find a sense of natural manhood, peace, and joy, and YES, even LOVE. We await the fall of Western society (and it is falling) and the return to the natural, historical, and traditional NORMS! We await the return of a culture in which males are free to love other males and in which homophobia is no longer known, praised, or worshipped. We see clearly how natural human culture has been destroyed in the West and we await the resurrection of natural human culture as it was intended by the Divine to be. In short, we await a return to the old ways and ancient culture and the rebirth of the brotherhood of man.

"We await the return of a culture in which males are free to love other males and in which homophobia is no longer known, praised, or worshipped."

Robert has nailed it.

That's what the religious right is about: denying males the freedom to love other males while worshipping the golden calf of homophobia.

It's BLASPHEMOUS.

Was CHRIST homophobic?

CHRIST was a MAN, who, as Redd has pointed out, spent most of his time in homosocial groups -- with other MEN.

St. John describes himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," adding, "who also leaned on his breast at supper."

So maybe Rick and Kay should cut the crap.

Robert: "We see clearly how natural human culture has been destroyed in the West and we await the resurrection of natural human culture as it was intended by the Divine to be. In short, we await a return to the old ways and ancient culture and the rebirth of the brotherhood of man."

"the resurrection of natural human culture as it was intended by the Divine"

"the rebirth of the brotherhood of man"

Robert uses religious language and properly so, for ours is a Holy Quest.

And I for one will go on saying so:

Masculinity is a Divine Principle, Manhood a Divine Gift, and Frot a Holy Sacrament.

Robert:

"Brotherly love, the opposite of fear, is the only Creator."

Thank you again guys.

True Warriors all.

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

Frances

Re: bludgeoned

11-4-2006

Your statement about sexuality, spirituality, masculinity and your Creator is very powerful.

I'm used to hearing men and women plead for "acceptance." I'm not used to hearing that their loving sexual unions are every bit as sacramental as the sex between a man and woman who love one another.

Along with the de-masculinizing effect of anal, I think this is another reason men resist expressing that part of their sexuality that is homosexual. They don't want to be forsaken.

I've learned from you that in the world of the Greeks, and other ancient warrior societies, they pretty much felt the same way about what made them men--sexuality, spirituality, masculinity--as you do. The way to be forsaken in their world was to deny that.

I can't help but think that those warriors would have respected you.

Bill Weintraub

Re: bludgeoned

11-4-2006

Thank you Frances for your kind words.

I asked Frances for permission to post her email, not because she said nice things about me, but because of these two key insights:

Along with the de-masculinizing effect of anal, I think this is another reason men resist expressing that part of their sexuality that is homosexual. They don't want to be forsaken.

Right.

What has taken place, for lack of a better word, is what I'll call the "de-sacralization" of sex between men.

It's been made unholy by a combination of "religious" nonsense and analism.

That has to be corrected.

Men have to once again see the sex that occurs between them as sacred.

I've learned from you that in the world of the Greeks, and other ancient warrior societies, they pretty much felt the same way about what made them men--sexuality, spirituality, masculinity--as you do. The way to be forsaken in their world was to deny that.

YES.

There's been a complete reversal.

Where once masculinity, sexuality, and spirituality were intertwined, and their interrelationship normative, today they're cut off from each other.

In Warrior societies, they were not.

For example, when a Greek took part in a festival honoring Apollo, he was worshipping an unabashedly male, Masculine god who'd taken both male and female lovers.

Statue of Apollo ca 525 BC

Which was true of many of the Greek gods and heroes -- they had both male and female lovers.

In addition there was a god specifically devoted to male-male love.

And to what Dave Sprowls has called the sacred bonds between men.

Here's how that worked:

Ares, the god of war, married Aphrodite, the goddess of love.

Their daughter was Harmonia, or Harmony.

And their son, in some versions, was Eros.

Eros was the god of male-male love.

And, interestingly, he was originally portrayed as an adolescent.

Does that mean that the Greeks thought of male relationships as "adolescent" -- as in immature?

NO.

What it means is that the Greeks recognized the importance of male-male relationships in the development of Natural Masculinity.

Here's what my foreign friend said about that in the post titled Natural Masculinity and Phallic Bonding:

Masculine male groups and bonds play an extremely important role in the development of physical, mental, emotional and social aspects of natural masculinity. As such they are an important part of the positive environment that all masculine identified boys should have. An otherwise masculine identified man who is deprived of membership in a masculine male group / bond during his growing years will be less than 1/4th naturally masculine than if he had such an opportunity. Masculine identified boys have a natural tendency to seek to join male-only groups, and it's their natural right.

The masculinity of men flows from their group. It's like their natural masculinity combines and gets manifold when masculine identified men unite. The camaraderie, mutual understanding, support, playing together, learning the ways of the world as a male, dealing with roughs and toughs of life together --- they all help to develop the natural masculinity that exists within him.

An intimate sexual relationship between two masculine men is equally helpful for the mutual development of their natural masculinity.

The social classification of "sexual orientation" which is actually a social mechanism to isolate male-male sexual behavior from heterosexual spaces and group it with the third sex under a combined 'homosexual' label, takes away this much needed right from a masculine identified boy who is strongly in touch with his same-sex feelings.

So:

War + Love = Harmony

War + Love = Male-Male Love

The Greeks understood this well and it was canonized in their mythology.

What this meant in practice was that if you were a man in love with a woman, and wanted divine aid in furthering your case, you prayed to Aphrodite.

And if you were a man in love with another man, you prayed to Eros.

The Greeks also prayed to Eros before battle.

Because Eros strengthened the bonds between men.

Moreover, the expression of the idea that love between men was sacred was not limited to the gods.

Because in addition to the gods themselves, there was the whole race of what the Greeks called "demigods."

Some of them, like Heracles, whose father was Zeus and mother a mortal woman, were clearly half-divine; but many were simply mortal men whose actions had made them not only heroic, but had conferred upon them an aura of divinity.

Not unlike Christian saints.

My favorite example are Castor and Polydeuces.

We would call them fraternal twins, because they emerged from their mother's womb at the same time;

but actually they had different fathers.

Their mother was Leda, a mortal.

Zeus came to her in the form of a swan and impregnated her.

But Leda's mortal husband slept with her later on the same night, and also impregnated her, so that she gave birth to the wholly mortal Castor and the semi-divine Polydeuces together.

The two brothers were inseparable companions and immensely devoted to each other.

When they were killed in battle, Zeus carried Polydeuces to heaven.

But Polydeuces refused to accept immortality without Castor; and so they both were eventually raised to the level of gods.

Let's be clear about this.

Polydeuces told Zeus that he'd rather be forever dead than be immortal without his brother.

Zeus' response was to make both men immortal.

Polydeuces by the way was a boxer; Castor a wrestler.

This story of brotherly sacrifice was immensely compelling to ancient men, and Castor and Polydeuces were enormously popular among both the Greeks and the Romans -- which is why "by the twin gods" was a common oath.

So in the story of Castor and Polydeuces you have masculinity and divinity and mutual great devotion combined.

And people really liked that.

And they would again, if we could present it to them.

Frances:

I've learned from you that in the world of the Greeks, and other ancient warrior societies, they pretty much felt the same way about what made them men--sexuality, spirituality, masculinity--as you do. The way to be forsaken in their world was to deny that.

Right.

So again, it was "normative," it was the norm, it was normal for men to combine and interconnect sexuality, spirituality, and masculinity in their lives.

Men who denied that connection were -- in Frances' word -- "forsaken."

They did themselves spiritual injury.

And often, they were cut off from their community.

Whereas those who celebrated those values -- were supported and cherished by their fellow MEN.

And that's what we're trying to do here in the Alliance.

We've presented three values as core to the Warrior's existence:

Masculinity

Fidelity

Frot

Masculinity we all understand -- though there's a definition of Natural Masculinity which you'd do well to ponder, because it talks about the relationship between male sexuality, male aggression, and homosex.

Why is Fidelity a core value?

One of our guys said to me recently that he likes to work out in the morning and then jerk off in the shower room with another, anonymous, guy -- before work.

Well, that's certainly very low risk, and he finds it validating.

Which is okay so far as it goes.

But what I want for that man and for every man is that he have a bonded Warrior brother who cares for him the way Achilles cared for Patroclus, Aristogeiton for Harmodius.

And Polydeuces for Castor.

And he's not going to find that in a shower room or sauna.

Won't happen.

Nor is such a sexual expression sacramental.

It's not bad.

But he could have so much more.

Frot is a sacramental expression of a holy union between two loving MEN -- sacred phallus to sacred phallus.

The consistent honoring and practice -- that is, living out -- of these three values will have the effect of "re-sacralizing" -- MAKING SACRED AGAIN -- sex between Loving Men and the bond that sex expresses.

The alternative is for men to stay in a heterosexist world in which the sacred bonds between men are denied; and/or an analist world in which an unholy and demeaning act practiced promiscuously denigrates and devalues that which should be sacred -- Masculinity.

And we can see very plainly with males like Mark Foley and Tedd Haggard what happens to those who chose analism and heterosexism and "religious" chicanery over Truth.

Their lives are nothing but hypocrisy and lies.

And ultimately they're caught up in those lies and betrayed by them.

No good.

THE WAY OF THE WARRIOR WAY IS THE WAY OF SALVATION.

BECAUSE IT IS AUTHENTICALLY HOLY.

SEXUALITY

SPIRITUALITY

MASCULINITY

HONORED, CHERISHED, AND EXALTED.

Bill Weintraub

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